Online reviews:
The role of information about the reviewer on
the reviewer’s trustworthiness
Mats Neeft
S3534294
INTRODUCTION
2
o Personal interest.
o 40% does not trust reviews
(Sterling, 2013).
o Factors of OCRs affecting its trustworthiness.
o Importance reviewer’s trustworthiness
(Snijders, 2001 : Liu & Park, 2015).
o Information available about the reviewer that could impact the reviewer’s
trustworthiness.
Ø Label assigned to the reviewer.
Ø Profile picture of the reviewer.
INTRODUCTION
o Problem statement.
o Research question:
How do a reviewer label, a profile picture and the type of display of the
reviewer’s name affect the reviewer’s trustworthiness, and how does
LITERATURE
4
o Relationships
o Multiple research areas
Ø Effect of labels on food products to increase trust in the quality of the
products
(Bernard et al., 2019).
Ø Labels could confuse the consumers mind
(Lachnit & Kimmel, 1991) .
Ø Increased reviewer’s trustworthiness due to process fluency
(Lee & Labroo, 2004).
Ø Internet users that use their real name are perceived as more trustworthy than those that
did not use their real names
(Mesch, 2012).
o Product involvement
Amount of product involvement may influence the effect effect of a reviewer label on the
reviewer’s trustworthiness
(Amblee & Bui, 2007 : Friberg & Grönqvist, 2012 : Zhang, Zhang & Yang 2016).
o Skepticism towards the reviewer’s identity
METHODOLOGY
6
Conditions
No profile picture of reviewer
Profile picture of reviewer
System-generated
Username
Reviewer’s
full name
System-generated
Username
Reviewer’s
full name
No reviewer label
Condition 1
Condition 2
Condition 5
Condition 7
(DISCUSSING THE) RESULTS
o Conditions and experimental variables on the reviewer’s trustworthiness.
o Profile picture on reviewer’s likability
Significant
(F =6.317, P<.01).
o Regression models
(DISCUSSING THE) RESULTS
8
o Four steps of Baron & Kenny (1986).
o Indeed an effect of the reviewer’s
CONCLUSION
Hypothesis
Accepted / Rejected
Outcome
1. The presence of a reviewer label in an OCR will
increase the reviewer’s trustworthiness.
Rejected
(P > .05)
2. The presence of a profile picture will increase the
reviewer’s trustworthiness.
Rejected
(P > .05)
3. The presence of a profile picture will increase the
reviewer’s likability
Accepted
(P < .01)
4. The presence of a reviewer’s full name instead of a
system-generated username will increase the
reviewer’s trustworthiness.
Rejected
(P > .05)
5. The presence of a reviewer’s full name versus a
system-generated username strengthens the positive
effect of a profile picture on the reviewer’s
trustworthiness.
Rejected
(P > .05)
6. An increase in the reviewer’s likability will increase
the reviewer’s trustworthiness.
Accepted
(P < .01)
7. The effect of the presence of a profile picture on
the reviewer’s trustworthiness is partially mediated by
the reviewer’s likability.
Partially accepted
(based on Shrout &
Bolger, 2002)
X on Y (P > .05). However, b decreased due to the mediator.
8. The positive effect of the presence of a reviewer
label on the reviewer’s trustworthiness is stronger if
the reader of the review is more involved with the
product.
Rejected
(P > .05)
9. An increase in skepticism towards the identity of
the reviewer will decrease the amount of
Accepted
(P < .01)
o Manipulation check
o Correlation
REFERENCES
10
1. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. 1986. The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 51(6): 1173–1182.
2. Bernard, J. C., Duke, J. M., & Albrecht, S. E. 2019. Do labels that convey minimal, redundant, or no information affect consumer perceptions and willingness to pay? Food Quality and
Preference, 71: 149–157.
3. Friberg, R., & Grönqvist, E. 2012. Do expert reviews affect the demand for wine? American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 4(1): 193–211.
4. Kuusela, H., Spence, M. T., & Kanto, A. J. 1998. Expertise effects on prechoice decision processes and final outcomes. European Journal of Marketing, 32(5): 559–576. 5. Lachnit, H., & Kimmel, H. D. 1993. Symposium: Classical and instrumental conditioning. Intergrative Physiological and Behvioral Science, 28(2): 151-153.
6. Liu, Z., & Park, S. 2015. What makes a useful online review? Implication for travel product websites. Tourism Management, 47: 140–151. 7. Snijders, C. 2001. Do you trust? Whom do you trust? When do you trust? Advances in Group Processes, vol. 18: 129–160.
8. Sterling, G. 2013. Confidence Crisis: 40 Percent Don’t Trust Online Reviews - Marketing Land. https://marketingland.com/confidence-crisis-40-percent-don’t-trust-online-reviews, October 5, 2019.
9. Lee, A. Y., & Labroo, A. A. 2004. The effect of conceptual and perceptual fluency on brand evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research, 41(2): 151–165.
