The Impact of Online Reviews on Consumers’ Purchase Intentions: Examining the Social Influence of Online Reviews, Group Similarity, and Self-Construal
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Social Influence of Online Reviews (Informative and Normative)
2.2. Group Similarity
2.3. Self-Construal
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Research Framework and Data Collection
3.2. Experimental Design and Procedure
4. Results
4.1. Manipulation Checks
4.2. Independent Self-Construal: Perceived Diagnosticity (Informative)/Belongingness (Normative)
4.3. Interdependent Self-Construal: Perceived Diagnosticity (Informative) and Belongingness (Normative)
4.4. Purchase Intention
4.5. Mediation Analysis (Perceived Diagnosticity/Belongingness)
5. Conclusions
5.1. Discussion
5.2. Academic Implications
5.3. Practical Implications
5.4. Limitations and Future Research
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. Experimental Stimuli
Appendix A1. High Rating (Samsung Galaxy) Condition
Appendix A2. Low Rating (Apple iPhone) Condition
References
- Maslowska, E.; Malthouse, E.C.; Bernritter, S.F. Too good to be true: The role of online reviews’ features in probability to buy. Int. J. Advert. 2017, 36, 142–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mintel. Seven in 10 Americans Seek Out Opinions before Making Purchases. 3 June 2015. Available online: https://www.mintel.com/press-centre/seven-in-10-americans-seek-out-opinions-before-making-purchases/ (accessed on 1 August 2023).
- Nielsen. Consumer Trust in Online, Social and Mobile Advertising Grows. April 2012. Available online: https://www.nielsen.com/insights/2012/consumer-trust-in-online-social-and-mobile-advertising-grows/ (accessed on 3 August 2023).
- Bernritter, S.F.; Verlegh, P.W.; Smit, E.G. Why nonprofits are easier to endorse on social media: The roles of warmth and brand symbolism. J. Interact. Mark. 2016, 33, 27–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, J.; Park, D.H.; Han, I. The different effects of online consumer reviews on consumers’ purchase intentions depending on trust in online shopping malls: An advertising perspective. Internet Res. 2011, 21, 187–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Han, M. Examining the effect of reviewer expertise and personality on reviewer satisfaction: An empirical study of TripAdvisor. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2021, 114, 106567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luo, L.; Duan, S.; Shang, S.; Pan, Y. What makes a helpful online review? Empirical evidence on the effects of review and reviewer characteristics. Online Inf. Rev. 2021, 45, 614–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Epstude, K.; Mussweiler, T. What you feel is how you compare: How comparisons influence the social induction of affect. Emotion 2009, 9, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Goldstein, N.J.; Cialdini, R.B.; Griskevicius, V. A room with a viewpoint: Using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. J. Consum. Res. 2008, 35, 472–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoskins, J.; Gopinath, S.; Verhaal, J.C.; Yazdani, E. The influence of the online community, professional critics, and location similarity on review ratings for niche and mainstream brands. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2021, 49, 1065–1087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zagenczyk, T.J.; Purvis, R.L.; Shoss, M.K.; Scott, K.L.; Cruz, K.S. Social influence and leader perceptions: Multiplex social network ties and similarity in leader–member exchange. J. Bus. Psychol. 2015, 30, 105–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Racherla, P.; Mandviwalla, M.; Connolly, D.J. Factors affecting consumers’ trust in online product reviews. J. Consum. Behav. 2012, 11, 94–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moon, J.H.; Sung, Y. Individuality within the group: Testing the optimal distinctiveness principle through brand consumption. Soc. Behav. Personal. Int. J. 2015, 43, 15–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agrawal, N.; Maheswaran, D. The effects of self-construal and commitment on persuasion. J. Consum. Res. 2005, 31, 841–849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lalwani, A.K.; Shavitt, S. The “me” I claim to be: Cultural self-construal elicits self-presentational goal pursuit. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2009, 97, 88–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lalwani, A.K.; Wang, J.J.; Silvera, D.H. How does cultural self-construal influence regulatory mode? J. Bus. Res. 2020, 117, 368–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhukya, R.; Paul, J. Social influence research in consumer behavior: What we learned and what we need to learn?–A hybrid systematic literature review. J. Bus. Res. 2023, 162, 113870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burnkrant, R.E.; Cousineau, A. Informational and normative social influence in buyer behavior. J. Consum. Res. 1975, 2, 206–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cialdini, R.B.; Trost, M.R. Social influence: Social norms, conformity and compliance. In The Handbook of Social Psychology; Gilbert, D.T., Fiske, S.T., Lindzey, G., Eds.; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1998; pp. 151–192. [Google Scholar]
- Markus, H.; Kitayama, S. Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation: Culture and the self. Psycological Rev. 1991, 98, 224–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Pelsmacker, P.; Dens, N.; Kolomiiets, A. The impact of text valence, star rating and rated usefulness in online reviews. Int. J. Advert. 2018, 37, 340–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ba, S.; Pavlou, P.A. Evidence of the effect of trust building technology in electronic markets: Price premiums and buyer behavior. MIS Q. 2002, 26, 243–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Willemsen, L.M.; Neijens, P.C.; Bronner, F.; De Ridder, J.A. “Highly recommended!” The content characteristics and perceived usefulness of online consumer reviews. J. Comput.-Mediat. Commun. 2011, 17, 19–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mauri, A.G.; Minazzi, R. Web reviews influence on expectations and purchasing intentions of hotel potential customers. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2013, 34, 99–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Purnawirawan, N.; De Pelsmacker, P.; Dens, N. Balance and sequence in online reviews: How perceived usefulness affects attitudes and intentions. J. Interact. Mark. 2012, 26, 244–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Purnawirawan, N.; Eisend, M.; De Pelsmacker, P.; Dens, N. A meta-analytic investigation of the role of valence in online reviews. J. Interact. Mark. 2015, 31, 17–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sparks, B.A.; Browning, V. The impact of online reviews on hotel booking intentions and perception of trust. Tour. Manag. 2011, 32, 1310–1323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Choi, J.; Yeu, M.; LEE, D.-H. Effects of online reviews’ volume, distribution and consumers’ self-construal on movie purchase decision. Korean J. Advert. 2013, 24, 87–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sridhar, S.; Srinivasan, R. Social influence effects in online product ratings. J. Mark. 2012, 76, 70–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moe, W.W.; Trusov, M. The value of social dynamics in online product ratings forums. J. Mark. Res. 2011, 48, 444–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ying, Y.; Feinberg, F.; Wedel, M. Leveraging missing ratings to improve online recommendation systems. J. Mark. Res. 2006, 43, 355–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yoo, D.; Lee, J. The effects of the social norms marketing on the consumers’ purchase intention in the online shopping context: Focusing on the social support level, group similarity, self-construal. J. Channel Retail. 2015, 20, 105–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DeRidder, R.; Schruijer, S.G.; Tripathi, R.C. Norm violation as a precipitating factor of negative intergroup relations. In Norm Violation and Intergroup Relations; DeRidder, R., Rama, C., Eds.; Clarendon Press: Oxford, UK, 1992; pp. 3–37. [Google Scholar]
- Campbell, J.D.; Fairey, P.J. Informational and normative routes to conformity: The effect of faction size as a function of norm extremity and attention to the stimulus. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1989, 57, 457–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wood, W. Attitude change: Persuasion and social influence. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2000, 51, 539–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Christensen, P.N.; Rothgerber, H.; Wood, W.; Matz, D.C. Social norms and identity relevance: A motivational approach to normative behavior. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2004, 30, 1295–1309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Solomon, M.R. Consumer Behavior: Buying Having and Being; Pearson: London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Festinger, L. A theory of social comparison processes. Hum. Relat. 1954, 7, 117–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, L. Online reviews: The impact of power and incidental similarity. J. Hosp. Mark. Manag. 2015, 24, 633–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carli, L.L.; Ganley, R.; Pierce-Otay, A. Similarity and satisfaction in roommate relationships. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 1991, 17, 419–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Murray, D.M.; Johnson, C.A.; Luepker, R.V.; Mittelmark, M.B. The prevention of cigarette smoking in children: A comparison of four strategies 1. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1984, 14, 274–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shang, J.; Reed, A.; Croson, R. Identity congruency effects on donations. J. Mark. Res. 2008, 45, 351–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mandel, N. Shifting selves and decision making: The effects of self-construal priming on consumer risk-taking. J. Consum. Res. 2003, 30, 30–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sinha, J.; Lu, F.-C. “I” value justice, but “we” value relationships: Self-construal effects on post-transgression consumer forgiveness. J. Consum. Psychol. 2016, 26, 265–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahluwalia, R. How far can a brand stretch? Understanding the role of self-construal. J. Mark. Res. 2008, 45, 337–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, C.Y. Who I am and how I think: The impact of self-construal on the roles of internal and external reference prices in price evaluations. J. Consum. Psychol. 2009, 19, 416–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hong, J.; Chang, H.H. “I” follow my heart and “we” rely on reasons: The impact of self-construal on reliance on feelings versus reasons in decision making. J. Consum. Res. 2015, 41, 1392–1411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Escalas, J.E.; Bettman, J.R. Self-construal, reference groups, and brand meaning. J. Consum. Res. 2005, 32, 378–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hesapci, O.; Merdin, E.; Gorgulu, S. Your ethnic model speaks to the culturally connected: Differential effects of model ethnicity in advertisements and the role of cultural self-construal. J. Consum. Behav. 2016, 15, 175–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duclos, R.; Barasch, A. Prosocial behavior in intergroup relations: How donor self-construal and recipient group-membership shape generosity. J. Consum. Res. 2014, 41, 93–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, Z.; Wang, J.; Mourali, M. Effect of peer influence on unauthorized music downloading and sharing: The moderating role of self-construal. J. Bus. Res. 2015, 68, 516–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meek, S.; Wilk, V.; Lambert, C. A big data exploration of the informational and normative influences on the helpfulness of online restaurant reviews. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 125, 354–367. [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] [CrossRef]
- Yoo, D.; Lee, J. The effects of corporate social responsibility (CSR) fit and CSR consistency on company evaluation: The role of CSR support. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gardner, W.L.; Gabriel, S.; Lee, A.Y. “I” value freedom, but “we” value relationships: Self-construal priming mirrors cultural differences in judgment. Psychol. Sci. 1999, 10, 321–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aaker, J.L.; Lee, A.Y. “I” seek pleasures and “we” avoid pains: The role of self-regulatory goals in information processing and persuasion. J. Consum. Res. 2001, 28, 33–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kwon, H.; Ha, S.; Im, H. The impact of perceived similarity to other customers on shopping mall satisfaction. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2016, 28, 304–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, Z.; Shao, B.; Zhang, Y. Effect of product presentation videos on consumers’ purchase intention: The role of perceived diagnosticity, mental imagery, and product rating. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 812579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Uhm, J.-P.; Kim, S.; Do, C.; Lee, H.-W. How augmented reality (AR) experience affects purchase intention in sport E-commerce: Roles of perceived diagnosticity, psychological distance, and perceived risks. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2022, 67, 103027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, B.; Kwon, O.; Lee, I.; Kim, J. Companionship with smart home devices: The impact of social connectedness and interaction types on perceived social support and companionship in smart homes. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017, 75, 922–934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, R.M.; Robbins, S.B. Measuring belongingness: The social connectedness and the social assurance scales. J. Couns. Psychol. 1995, 42, 232–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, X.G.; Wang, X.; Cai, Y.J. Corporate-, product-, and user-image dimensions and purchase intentions. J. Comput. 2011, 6, 1875–1879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Preacher, K.J.; Hayes, A.F. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behav. Res. Methods 2008, 40, 879–891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhao, X.; Lynch Jr, J.G.; Chen, Q. Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. J. Consum. Res. 2010, 37, 197–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chan, I.C.C.; Lam, L.W.; Chow, C.W.; Fong, L.H.N.; Law, R. The effect of online reviews on hotel booking intention: The role of reader-reviewer similarity. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2017, 66, 54–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, J.; Kong, D.; Huang, H. Homogenous or heterogeneous? Demand effect of reviewer similarity in online video website. Inf. Technol. People 2022, 37, 110–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Characteristics | N | % | |
---|---|---|---|
Gender | Male | 166 | 62.2% |
Female | 101 | 37.8% | |
Age | 20–29 | 103 | 38.6% |
30–39 | 104 | 39.0% | |
40–49 | 34 | 12.7% | |
50–59 | 17 | 6.4% | |
≥60 | 9 | 3.4% |
Variables | Measurement Items | Cronbach’s Alpha | |
---|---|---|---|
[Manipulation Checks] | |||
Self-Construal [56] | Independent (self-thoughts index) | ∙ You thought just about yourself. ∙ Your thoughts about the message were focused on just yourself. ∙ Your thoughts were focused on just you. | α = 0.862 |
Interdependent (other-thoughts index) | ∙ You thought about you and your family. ∙ Your thoughts about the message were focused on you and your family. ∙ Your thoughts were focused on you and your family. | α = 0.850 | |
Group Similarity (perceived similarity to others) [57] | ∙ Samsung Galaxy users (Apple iPhone users) reflect who I am. ∙ Samsung Galaxy users (Apple iPhone users) are similar to me. ∙ Samsung Galaxy users (Apple iPhone users) are very much like me. | α = 0.836 | |
[Variables] | ∙ These reviews are helpful for me to evaluate the earbuds. ∙ These reviews are helpful for me to understand the performance of the earbuds. ∙ This review is diagnostic. ∙ The review provided me with information to evaluate the earbuds’ quality. | α = 0.777 | |
Perceived Diagnosticity (informative) [58,59] | |||
Perceived Belongingness (normative) [60,61] | ∙ If I use the product (earbuds), I think I belong to the same group as the reviewers (Samsung Galaxy, Apple iPhone, or other mobile phone users). ∙ If I use the product (earbuds), I feel a sense of belonging with the reviewers (Samsung Galaxy, Apple iPhone, or other mobile phone users). ∙ If I use the product (earbuds), I feel close to the reviewers (Samsung Galaxy, Apple iPhone, or other mobile phone users). ∙ If I use the product (earbuds), I feel like I’m with the reviewers (Samsung Galaxy, Apple iPhone, or other mobile phone users). ∙ If I use the product (earbuds), I feel socially connected to the reviewers (Samsung Galaxy, Apple iPhone, or other mobile phone users). | α = 0.896 | |
Purchase Intention [62] | ∙ The likelihood of me buying the product (earbuds) is very high. ∙ I would consider buying the product (earbuds) of this brand. ∙ The probability that I would like to buy the product (earbuds) of this brand is very high. ∙ My willingness to buy this product (earbuds) is very high. | α = 0.862 |
SS | D.F | MSS | F | Sig | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Online Review Rating (A) | 9.612 | 1 | 9.612 | 10.989 | 0.001 |
Group Similarity (B) | 2.872 | 1 | 2.872 | 3.284 | 0.071 |
Self-Construal (C) | 0.633 | 1 | 0.633 | 0.724 | 0.396 |
(A) × (B) | 1.798 | 1 | 1.798 | 2.056 | 0.153 |
(A) × (C) | 5.180 | 1 | 5.180 | 5.922 | 0.016 |
(B) × (C) | 0.558 | 1 | 0.558 | 0.637 | 0.425 |
(A) × (B) × (C) | 6.111 | 1 | 6.111 | 6.987 | 0.009 |
Error | 226.536 | 259 | 0.875 |
SS | D.F | MSS | F | Sig | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Online Review Rating (A) | 3.054 | 1 | 3.054 | 2.065 | 0.152 |
Group Similarity (B) | 2.972 | 1 | 2.972 | 2.010 | 0.158 |
Self-Construal (C) | 0.294 | 1 | 0.294 | 0.199 | 0.656 |
(A) × (B) | 4.078 | 1 | 4.078 | 2.757 | 0.098 |
(A) × (C) | 5.270 | 1 | 5.270 | 3.563 | 0.060 |
(B) × (C) | 0.003 | 1 | 0.003 | 0.002 | 0.964 |
(A) × (B) × (C) | 8.526 | 1 | 8.526 | 5.765 | 0.017 |
Error | 383.077 | 259 | 1.479 |
SS | D.F | MSS | F | Sig | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Online Review Rating (A) | 19.220 | 1 | 19.220 | 15.939 | 0.000 |
Group Similarity (B) | 0.930 | 1 | 0.930 | 0.772 | 0.380 |
Self-Construal (C) | 3.685 | 1 | 3.685 | 3.058 | 0.082 |
(A) × (B) | 7.810 | 1 | 7.810 | 6.481 | 0.011 |
(A) × (C) | 0.374 | 1 | 0.374 | 0.311 | 0.578 |
(B) × (C) | 0.158 | 1 | 0.158 | 0.131 | 0.718 |
(A) × (B) × (C) | 7.241 | 1 | 7.241 | 6.008 | 0.015 |
error | 312.121 | 259 | 1.205 |
Self Construal | Group Similarity | IV (Independent Variable) | MV (Mediating Variable) | DV (Dependent Variable) | Indirect Effect | 95% CI (Confidence Interval) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Independent | High | Online review rating | Perceived diagnosticity | Purchase intention | −0.33 | −0.6183–−0.0989 |
Low | −0.51 | −0.8641–−0.1970 | ||||
Interdependent | High | −0.36 | −0.6684–−0.1054 | |||
Low | 0.23 | −0.0734–0.5805 |
Self Construal | Group Similarity | IV | MV | DV | Indirect Effect | 95% CI |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Independent | High | Online review rating | Perceived belongingness | Purchase intention | 0.06 | −0.0726–0.2008 |
Low | −0.01 | −0.2815–0.2439 | ||||
Interdependent | High | −0.35 | −0.6419–−0.1293 | |||
Low | 0.03 | −0.1427–0.2068 |
Hypothesis | Results | |
---|---|---|
Hypothesis 1 (H1) | ⇒ | Supported |
Hypothesis 2 (H2) | ⇒ | Supported |
Hypothesis 3 (H3) | ⇒ | Not supported |
Hypothesis 4 -Hypothesis 4a (H4a) -Hypothesis 4b (H4b) | ⇒ | Supported |
Hypothesis 5 (H5) | ⇒ | Supported |
Hypothesis 6 (H6) -Hypothesis 6a (H6a) -Hypothesis 6b (H6b) | ⇒ | Supported |
Hypothesis 7 (H7) | ⇒ | Supported |
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. |
© 2024 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
Ahn, Y.; Lee, J. The Impact of Online Reviews on Consumers’ Purchase Intentions: Examining the Social Influence of Online Reviews, Group Similarity, and Self-Construal. J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2024, 19, 1060-1078. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer19020055
Ahn Y, Lee J. The Impact of Online Reviews on Consumers’ Purchase Intentions: Examining the Social Influence of Online Reviews, Group Similarity, and Self-Construal. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research. 2024; 19(2):1060-1078. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer19020055
Chicago/Turabian StyleAhn, Yunjeong, and Jieun Lee. 2024. "The Impact of Online Reviews on Consumers’ Purchase Intentions: Examining the Social Influence of Online Reviews, Group Similarity, and Self-Construal" Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research 19, no. 2: 1060-1078. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer19020055
APA StyleAhn, Y., & Lee, J. (2024). The Impact of Online Reviews on Consumers’ Purchase Intentions: Examining the Social Influence of Online Reviews, Group Similarity, and Self-Construal. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 19(2), 1060-1078. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer19020055