Journal of Marketing Communications

ISSN: 1352-7266 (Print) 1466-4445 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjmc20

Why should I believe this? Deciphering the

qualities of a credible online customer review

Carl J. Clare, Gillian Wright, Peter Sandiford & Alberto Paucar Caceres

To cite this article: Carl J. Clare, Gillian Wright, Peter Sandiford & Alberto Paucar Caceres
(2016): Why should I believe this? Deciphering the qualities of a credible online customer
review, Journal of Marketing Communications, DOI: 10.1080/13527266.2016.1138138

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2016.1138138

Published online: 17 Feb 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 34

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjmc20

Download by: [Politechnika Warszawska] Date: 29 March 2016, At: 15:05

 Journal of Marketing Communications, 2016
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2016.1138138

Why should I believe this? Deciphering the qualities of a

credible online customer review
Carl J. Clarea,b, Gillian Wrightb, Peter Sandifordc and Alberto Paucar Caceresb
a
Leeds Business School, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK; bMarketing, Operations and Digital Business, New
Business School, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK; cAdelaide Business School, University
of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia
Downloaded by [Politechnika Warszawska] at 15:05 29 March 2016

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Online customer reviews have been shown to have a powerful impact Received 3 November 2014
on the sales of a given product or service. However, the qualities Accepted 24 December 2015
of a ‘credible’ online customer review are still subject to debate. KEYWORDS
Existing research has highlighted the potential influence of a range Review helpfulness; review
of factors on the credibility of an online customer review, but relies credibility; online customer
heavily on quantitative methods and a ‘top down’ approach. In turn, reviews; electronic word-of-
this can reduce our understanding of the influence of these factors mouth; consumer behaviour;
into merely discerning whether one pre-determined factor is more qualitative research
influential than another is. This paper adopted a ‘bottom up’ thematic
analysis of individual qualitative interviews with a purposeful sample
of consumers who regularly utilised online customer reviews. The
findings uncovered a range of factors that influenced the credibility
of an online customer review that were attached to a reader’s personal
experience and to the content of a specific review, and inferred the
existence of a reciprocal relationship between the constructs of review
helpfulness and review credibility.

1. Introduction
Traditionally, the term word-of-mouth (WOM), when used within a marketing context,
referred to the direct communication from person to person regarding an opinion of a
product and/or service. There have been many definitions of this concept quoted from within
academic marketing literature. These definitions tend to focus on the mode of communi-
cation (often verbal), flow of information (from person to person), the independence of the
sender and the offline context (Arndt 1967; Merton 1968; Stern 1994; Brown, Broderick,
and Lee 2007; Jansen et al. 2009). Definitions of electronic word-of-mouth (EWOM) can be
differentiated from their traditional counterparts by their emphasis on the online context
that facilitates the exchange of information regarding the usage and characteristics of goods
and services (Hennig-Thurau et al. 2004; Litvin, Goldsmith, and Pan 2008).
One particular communication type which falls under the EWOM ‘umbrella’ is the
online customer review. This is an area that has been researched heavily, and considered
of the upmost importance to organisations that sell to consumers, with research clearly

CONTACT  Carl J. Clare  [email protected]

© 2016 Taylor & Francis
 2    C. J. Clare et al.

demonstrating the impact this source of information can have on the sales of the product or
service they are associated with (see Section 2.1). However, in an era when consumers have
to contend with issues such as fake reviews (both good and bad) and a situation whereby a
consumer can post a negative review of a product or service regardless of whether the fault
came from them or the product/service provider, an important question that needs to be
addressed by any organisation who allow users to post reviews is what are the key factors that
influence consumers when it comes to evaluating whether or not the information and opin-
ions conveyed in an individual online customer review are seen as 'credible',or ‘believable?’
An important limitation to note regarding the extant EWOM literature, including the liter-
ature addressing the credibility of an online customer review, is its heavy reliance on quanti-
tative research methods, a limitation which has already been noted within recently published
literature reviews (Cheung and Thadani 2010; Chan and Ngai 2011). Research on the topic
of review credibility often takes a ‘top down’ approach, by pre-selecting a range of potential
Downloaded by [Politechnika Warszawska] at 15:05 29 March 2016

influences from within the existing literature and testing the extent to which they affect the
credibility of an online customer review. Relying solely on such an approach can reduce our
understanding of the issue to merely discerning whether one pre-determined factor is more
influential than another when determining the credibility of an online customer review. As
quoted in previous qualitative marketing studies, a lack of qualitative depth of understanding
can lead to an insufficient understanding of a lived experience, with qualitative-based stud-
ies allowing for a more refined understanding of behaviour (MacIver, Piacentini, and Eadie
2012), which in this case is the experience of evaluating the credibility of an online customer
review. The objective of this study intends to address this particular limitation of the extant
literature base by adopting a qualitative approach, using consumer testimonies about their
experiences with online customer reviews as the primary unit of analysis.

2.  Review of key literature

The term ‘EWOM’ is frequently used as an umbrella term to encompass many different types
of online communications, each with different characteristics, as outlined in Table 1.
The EWOM literature base has previously been categorised according to an input-pro-
cess-output model, as illustrated in Figure 1.
This study is located in the ‘process’ segment of this model, in particular the area of EWOM
message characteristics, focusing specifically on online customer reviews.
A commonly accepted definition within the literature for the term EWOM is ‘any positive
or negative statement made by potential, actual or former customers which is made available
to a multitude of people or institutions via the internet’ (Hennig-Thurau et al. 2004, 39). As

Table 1. Types of EWOM.

Scope of communication
One-to-one One-to-many Many-to-many
Level of Asynchronous • Emails • Websites •  Virtual communities
interactivity • Blogs
• Online customer reviews
•  Hate sites
Synchronous •  Video calling •  Chat rooms • Newsgroups
•  Instant messaging

Source: Litvin et al. (2008).

 Journal of Marketing Communications   3

INPUT: Posting or reading EWOM PROCESS: Processing EWOM OUTPUT: Outcome after processing
EWOM
Writer’s motivations EWOM platform
- Social tie Purchase decision/product sales
- Opinion leader EWOM system
- Information giving Customer behaviour/attitude
- Credibility EWOM interface/site design
- Experience/expertise/ Customer loyalty
EWOM message characteristics
Involvement
- Valence Product judgement
- Volume acceptance/adoption
Reader’s motivations
- Content/quality
- Social tie Reduced risk
- Usefulness
- Opinion seeker
- Credibility
- Information need Marketing implications
- Accuracy
- Prior knowledge/experience/
involvement EWOM metric
EWOM information
- Cost/risk/uncertainty of interpretation/processing
buying

Marketer’s motivations
Downloaded by [Politechnika Warszawska] at 15:05 29 March 2016

Figure 1. EWOM IPO Model. Source: Chan and Ngai (2011).

illustrated in Table 1, the online customer review is just one form of EWOM, defined as ‘peer
generated product evaluations posted on company or third party websites’ (Mudambi and
Schuff 2010, 186).

2.1.  Impact of online customer reviews on sales

It has been consistently demonstrated that consumers tend to consult online customer
reviews on a regular basis to assist with purchasing decisions (Pillier 1999; Bailey 2005; Walsh
2007; White 2007; McEleny 2008) and that consumers view WOM communications as a more
credible source of information than information provided by marketing sources (Bickhart
and Schindler 2001; Hogan, Lemon, and Libai 2004). Research has also consistently demon-
strated the powerful influence of online customer reviews on a variety of outcomes. A range
of studies have been conducted which found that positive online customer reviews can
increase the sales of the product or service which they have been attributed with (Senecal
and Nantel 2004; Sorensen and Rasmussen 2004; Chevalier and Mayzlin 2006; Clemons 2008;
Davis and Khazanchi 2008; Gauri, Bhatnagar, and Rao 2008; Ye, Law, and Gu 2009) as well as
the reputation of the brand of the product reviewed (Amblee and Bui 2008; Lee, Rodgers,
and Kim 2009). Whilst some studies demonstrate the detrimental impact of negative online
customer reviews on product sales (Clemons and Gao 2008; Lee, Park, and Han 2008; Ye, Law,
and Gu 2009), others have highlighted the benefits of having some negative reviews as hav-
ing a positive impact upon the perceived credibility of a message-set and on raising product
awareness (Dargan 2008; Doh and Hwang 2009; Vermeulen and Seegers 2009). However, this
does not detract from the consensus that all of these studies collectively demonstrate how
online customer reviews, both positive and negative, can influence consumers’ perceptions
of a brand and the sales of the product or service to which they correspond.
 4    C. J. Clare et al.

2.2.  Categorising the factors influencing the effectiveness of online customer

reviews
There are two key constructs that are important in the context of this study, ‘review help-
fulness’ and ‘review credibility’. Review helpfulness is defined as ‘a peer generated product
review that facilitates the consumers purchase decision process’ (Mudambi and Schuff 2010,
186). A range of studies have explored this construct to date, many of which utilise data-sets
of customer reviews as the primary unit of analysis. These studies demonstrate the impact of
a range of factors on perceptions of helpfulness such as review depth, information quality,
rating extremity and presence of storytelling (Black and Kelley 2009; Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil
et al. 2009; Mudambi and Schuff 2010; Wu, Heijden, and Korfiatis 2011; Huang et al. 2015) with
one questionnaire-based study highlighting the impact of information comprehensiveness
and relevance on helpfulness perceptions (Cheung, Lee, and Rabjohn 2008).
The key construct under investigation for the purpose of this study is that of ‘review
Downloaded by [Politechnika Warszawska] at 15:05 29 March 2016

credibility’, which is defined as ‘the extent to which one perceives a review to be believable,
true or factual’ (Cheung et al. 2009, 12). The existing EWOM literature highlights a wide range
of factors that can potentially influence how consumers evaluate the credibility of online
customer reviews. Whilst a singular model categorising these influences does not currently
exist within the literature, it is possible to extract several categories from a range of studies.
Figure 2 demonstrates these categories.
The personal and environmental factors are underpinned by the categories of attribu-
tion theory (Heider 1958; Eagly, Woods, and Chaiken 1978). In the context of evaluating the
credibility of an online customer review, personal factors would constitute those directly
related to the receiver. Studies which analyse the factors influencing consumers to consult
online customer reviews demonstrates the impact of a range of personal factors, in particular
risk reduction (Hennig-Thurau and Walsh 2003; Bailey 2005; Goldsmith and Horowitz 2006).
Research has also been conducted within an EWOM context on the influence of involve-
ment. Defined as the perceived personal relevance of a product based on the individual’s
needs, interests and values (Park, Jumin, and Ingoo 2007), existing studies demonstrate how
involvement works as a moderating factor which influences the impact of other factors on
review credibility. Park et al.’s study (2007) demonstrated how low-involvement consumers
were more influenced by the number of reviews, whereas high-involvement consumers
were more influenced by review quality. Park and Kim (2008) more specifically analysed the
moderating influence of product knowledge, and found that attribute-centric reviews were
found more helpful by experts, with novices finding benefit-centric reviews more helpful.
Environmental factors, otherwise referred to as situational factors by some studies, are
those which do not relate to the sender, receiver or the message (Sweeney, Soutar, and
Mazzarol 2008). The role of situational factors on influencing the effectiveness of traditional
WOM has long been acknowledged by both established studies and more recent studies
within the field (Bloch, Sherell, and Ridgeway 1986; Mazzarol, Sweeney, and Soutar 2007;
Sweeney, Soutar, and Mazzarol 2008) with research demonstrating how a variety of situa-
tional factors could potentially influence the impact of an online customer review, such as
product type and price (Huang, Lurie, and Mitra 2009; Park and Lee 2009; Mudambi and
Schuff 2010). However, research that tests the impact of situational factors within a EWOM
environment is still limited.
 Journal of Marketing Communications   5

Perceived credibility of Environmental

Personal Factors online customer Factors
reviews

Message
Characteristics

Informational Normative
Factors Factors
Downloaded by [Politechnika Warszawska] at 15:05 29 March 2016

Figure 2.  Factors influencing the perceived credibility of online customer reviews. Sources: Sweeney
et al. (2008), Cheung et al. (2008).

2.3.  Factors influencing review credibility

Research to date which specifically focuses on the factors influencing review credibility that
focuses heavily on measuring the impact of informational and normative factors. Rooted in
dual process theory (Deutch and Gerrard 1955), informational factors are categorised as those
based on the written content of reviews, with normative factors categorising those factors
which can be subjected to social aggregation mechanisms (Cheung et al. 2009, 13). With
traditional WOM communications, interpersonal factors such as tie strength and homophily
have been demonstrated to influence the credibility of such communications (Leonard-
Barton 1985; Bansal and Voyer 2000; Ruef, Aldrich, and Carter 2003; Brown, Broderick, and
Lee 2007). However, in the context of online customer reviews, a sender posts a review to a
platform, such as an e-retailer or third party website. In almost all circumstances, there is no
interpersonal relationship present between the sender and receivers that could therefore
influence credibility. Brown, Broderick and Lee (2007) argue that on this basis, in an online
context, tie strength must be characterised by a receiver’s closeness to a specific website.
A range of studies utilising primarily quantitative methods have demonstrated the influ-
ence of a variety of informational and normative factors on the credibility of an online cus-
tomer review. Cheung et al. (2009) asked subjects to answer a variety of questions relating to
their most recent online recommendation they had read and found that argument strength,
source credibility and confirmation of prior belief all significantly influenced credibility.
These results were consistent with previous research which illustrated the importance of
the reputation of reviewers in determining their credibility (Hu, Ling, and Zhang 2008). Doh
and Hwang’s study (2009) expanded upon this, focussing on the credibility of a message
set and how the positive: negative ratio of messages influenced perceived credibility. The
findings demonstrated that the message set with a positive:negative ratio of 8:2 received
the highest credibility rating. Studies have also consistently demonstrated the impact of
the aesthetics of a web page on the perceived credibility of website content, with higher
 6    C. J. Clare et al.

levels of aesthetics resulting in an increase in credibility perceptions (Tractinsky et al. 2006,

Robins and Holmes 2008).

3.  Research design

Existing literature reviews have highlighted the dominance of quantitative studies in the
field of EWOM research (Cheung and Thadani 2010; Chan and Ngai 2011). This study seeks
to achieve new insights on the topic of how consumers evaluate the credibility of an online
customer review based on the lived experiences of those who use them. Various qualita-
tive studies in the field of EWOM marketing have demonstrated an ability to generate new
insights on their given subject area and an ability to supplement existing quantitative studies
on the same topic by providing an extra depth of understanding (Mazzarol, Sweeney, and
Soutar 2007; Sweeney, Soutar, and Mazzarol 2008). It was on these grounds that a qualita-
Downloaded by [Politechnika Warszawska] at 15:05 29 March 2016

tive approach was adopted in order to obtain a more in-depth understanding of the factors
that can influence the credibility of an online customer review, based on the testimonies of
consumers whom actually use them to assist with purchasing decisions. In-depth semi-struc-
tured interviews were chosen as the preferred data collection method as opposed to focus
groups on the grounds that they would allow participants to express their views in their
own terms without being influenced by other group members.
Each of the interviews had three main components, exploring (1) the factors that influ-
enced the participants’ to consult an online customer review, (2) the factors that influenced
the participants’ perceptions of a helpful online customer review and (3) the factors that
influenced the participants’ perceptions of a credible online customer review. Whilst the
full data-set was analysed for the purpose of this study, the findings presented in this paper
corresponded with the second and third components.
Previous research has demonstrated the effectiveness of conducting pilot studies in
order to refine the interview procedure (Sampson 2004; Kim 2011). The first six interviews
were treated as pilot interviews in order to refine the interview process, utilising a range of
behavioural and experience questions across all three components in order to encourage
participants to discuss their experiences with online customer reviews. The questioning
was influenced by the procedures outlined in critical incident technique (Flanaghan 1954).
Whilst the interview process did not strictly adhere to the specialist processes outlined in
this method, the questions were focused on asking about specific instances in which the
participants had used online customer reviews to assist with a purchasing decision in order
to elicit the causes, descriptions and outcomes of these events, the feelings and perceptions
in the situation and how the participants felt this would change any future behaviour.
The seventh interview onwards (not counting the interview that was omitted) represented
the main phase of this study. One of the key limitations of the pilot phase was that the
technique adopted relied heavily on events being remembered. For the main phase, par-
ticipants were given access to a computer and encouraged to find online customer reviews
of products or services that they had recently purchased or was planning to purchase in the
immediate future to discuss throughout the interview process. Implementing this change
provided the participants with stimuli which facilitated a greater depth of discussion than
the interviews conducted in the pilot phase. The provision of this extra stimuli also acted
as a memory aid which helped participant recall other incidents in which they consulted
online customer reviews in order to assist with a purchasing decision. In instances where
 Journal of Marketing Communications   7

Table 2. Application of purposeful sampling strategies.

Approach Description Application
Homogeneous sampling Sampling with the intention of The sample included consumers who
describing a particular subgroup in proclaimed to regularly use online customer
depth reviews. This was the sole criteria for the first
round of interviews
Criterion sampling Ensuring that a sample meets a Participants of this research confirmed prior to
pre-determined criteria their interview that they had either:
• Recently purchased a product or service
and consulted online customer reviews
• Was looking to make a purchase within the
near future with the assistance of online
customer reviews
This criteria was introduced for the second
round of interviews
Downloaded by [Politechnika Warszawska] at 15:05 29 March 2016

participants were discussing a pending purchase decision, participants only consulted online
customer reviews, discussed their opinions of these reviews with the interviewer and how
these reviews would influence their intention to act. No actual purchases were made during
the interview process.
As described at the outset, this research focused on exploring the credibility of single
specific online customer reviews as a source of information, as opposed to online customer
reviews as a general source of information as a whole. Previous research has highlighted the
potentially detrimental influence of scepticism towards online customer reviews as a source
of information (Sher and Lee 2009), hence this needed to be recognised when recruiting
participants from the study.
This study adopted a combination of sampling strategies, all of which fall under the
umbrella of ‘purposeful sampling’ as outlined by Patton (2002). Table 2 outlines the
approaches utilised within this study and the criteria for participation.
As Table 2 shows, the first criteria was that participants were required to frequently con-
sult online customer reviews to assist with purchasing decisions by their own admission.
By selecting participants who had used online customer reviews at some point in the past
or intended to do so in order to assist with an upcoming purchase decision, it was assumed
that scepticism amongst the participants towards online customer reviews as a source of
information was low on the basis that the willingness to use them to assist with a purchasing
decision was present. The additional criteria introduced for the main phase of the interviews
asked that participants had either a purchasing decision that they were currently deliberating
with the assistance of online customer reviews, or had recently made a purchase with the
assistance of online customer reviews, in order to facilitate the interview process detailed
on the previous page. Participants were initially recruited from a single Higher Education
institute within the north-west of England. A snowball strategy was then employed in order
to extend beyond this institute.
The data from this study were collected from a sample of 13 participants, generating 17
individual interviews between them. One interview was omitted from the data analysis, as
it did not yield any usable data, leaving 16 interviews from a sample size of 12. Some par-
ticipants from the pilot were invited to a second interview based on their responsiveness in
their first interview. The details of the sample base are outlined in Table 3.
 Downloaded by [Politechnika Warszawska] at 15:05 29 March 2016

8 
  C. J. Clare et al.

Table 3. Details of sample.

Case Sex Age Occupation Phase Purchase 1 Purchase 2 Purchase 3
P I
1 F 25–34 Student P1 I3 Mobile phone Digital camera Holiday
2 M 18–24 Sales assistant P2 I2 Headphones Headphones n/a
3 M 25–34 Careers advisor P3 n/a Computer game n/a n/a
4 M 35–44 Lecturer P4 I4 Running trainers Cycling holiday Energy drink
5 M 18–24 Auditor P5 I10 Laptop Desktop n/a
6 F 35–44 Student P6 n/a Computer game Tumble dryer n/a
7 M 35–44 Lecturer n/a I1 iPod Holiday House
8 F 35–44 Lecturer n/a I5 Holiday n/a n/a
9 F 45–54 Student n/a I6 Holiday n/a n/a
10 F 45–54 Researcher n/a I7 Camera n/a n/a
11 M 45–54 Lecturer n/a I8 City break Accommodation for business n/a
trip
12 M 25–34 Marketing director n/a I9 TV n/a n/a

Notes: M = Male, F = Female, P = Pilot interview, I = Main interviews.

 Journal of Marketing Communications   9

Stage 2: Stage 3:
Generating Search for
codes themes
Stage 1:
Stage 6:
Familiarisation
Producing the
with the data
final report

Stage 5: Stage 4:
Review Define and
themes name
themes

Figure 3. Thematic analysis. Source: Braun and Clarke (2006).

The procedures for the analysis of the data collected adhered to those described in Braun
and Clarke’s version of thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke 2006) as outlined below in Figure
Downloaded by [Politechnika Warszawska] at 15:05 29 March 2016

3. NVivo 9 facilitated the coding of the data. It has been argued previously that CAQDAS
packages have the potential to transform qualitative research into a rigid, automated analysis
of data that requires human interpretation some researchers have misused NVivo in order
to quantify qualitative data yet make claims of a qualitative analysis (Bringer, Johnston, and
Brackenridge 2004). However, the responsibility for such misuse ultimately lies with the
researcher rather than the software package itself, as it is possible to attempt to quantify
qualitative data without a CAQDAS package (Bringer, Johnston, and Brackenridge 2004;
Clare 2012). For this research, all coding and analysis was conducted manually within NVivo
9. None of the features available within the programme, which automatise the coding of
qualitative data, were used as part of this study.
Unlike grounded theory, Braun and Clarke’s thematic analysis outlines an element of
flexibility in the sense that it can be applied to a ‘top down’ analysis of qualitative data with
themes pre-determined from the literature, or a ‘bottom up’ analysis, with the coding and
generation of themes dictated by the emergence of the findings. The bottom-up approach
was adopted for the purpose of this research as the as the themes and theme categories
were named and labelled to reflect the content of the data as it emerged from the findings
and analysis. However, as the literature review was conducted prior to the data collection, the
influence of pre-existing literature on the naming of themes and theme categories cannot
be discounted.

4.  Extracts from findings

In the literature review, Figure 2 demonstrated a range of categories extracted from existing
literature that could be used to organise factors which influence the credibility of an online
customer review. As stated in the research design section, the themes and theme categories
presented in this study were dictated by the content of the data collected. Figure 4 provides
a visual representation of these themes in the form of a thematic map.
The first-tier categories, signalled by the ovals with bold text, represented the focus of
the interview components. As per the study title, the focus of this paper was the topic of
review credibility, hence the key themes and second-tier categories are organised within
this. The findings also illustrated a reciprocal relationship between the constructs of ‘review
helpfulness’ and ‘review credibility’ (see Section 4.5) hence the inclusion of ‘review helpful-
ness’ on the thematic map.
 10    C. J. Clare et al.

Product knowledge Moderates

Personal
impact of
experience qualitative
Review preconceptions review
Review
specific
factors
credibility Perceptions of review
credibility influenced by…

Review helpfulness and

review credibility Review
Review
underpin one another
attributes Quantitative
helpfulness

Consistency

Qualitative Timeliness
Relevance
Verification
Downloaded by [Politechnika Warszawska] at 15:05 29 March 2016

Value

Rationality

Competence

Honesty

Figure 4. Thematic map of factors influencing review credibility.

Each of the themes identified within the overall category of review credibility represent a
factor identified from the responses of the participants that influenced how they evaluated
the credibility of an online customer review. These were then organised into further two
broad categories. The first of which is personal experience. The themes placed in this category
represented elements of the participant’s life experience which influenced how they evalu-
ated the credibility of an online customer review, in particular experience which resulted in
the accumulation of product knowledge and experience with using online customer reviews
in previous purchases which resulted in the formation of preconceptions of online customer
reviews as a general source of information. The second category is review attributes. The
themes placed in this category represent attributes attached to an individual review which
influenced how participants evaluated its credibility. Themes were divided into a further two
subcategories. The first of which was entitled quantitative attributes, with themes in this
subcategory representing review attributes which were measurable and often presented
numerically. The second subcategory was entitled qualitative attributes, representing review
attributes which derived from the written content of a review.

4.1.  Review helpfulness

The topic of review helpfulness was discussed in its own context in the second component of
the interviews. Two subthemes emerged which represented the key determinants of review
helpfulness in the opinions of the participants. The most heavily discussed was relevance.
The participants of this study often assessed the relevance of online customer reviews by
attempting to match any instances of personal circumstances or product usage to their
 Journal of Marketing Communications   11

own circumstances or anticipated usage, with helpful reviews often constituting reviews
the participants could ‘relate to’ in these contexts. This is typified in the following extracts;
I would put my family’s variables into that review … I would look at my variables, and what I
would have to contend with. Regarding that one guy, who went there and had a great time,
then great. But if he had a great time because he was discoing at 3am, then I’m not going to be
that interested. [Case 7, Interview 1]
(Referring to a review of headphones) Like comfort, and he has mentioned comfort, do you
know what I mean? They are very uncomfortable. And that is something that I have experienced
when I have had mine on a particular time. So I mean I can relate to that. [Case 2, Interview 2]
Other participants described how they would have a list of pre-set criteria determined from
the outset related to the product or service they were looking to purchase, with ‘relevance’
being determined by the extent to which the reviews provided information on these criteria.
Everything there to me is relevant. Transport, that comes into the location. Staff are helpful, it’s
Downloaded by [Politechnika Warszawska] at 15:05 29 March 2016

modern and it tells me what I want to know. The other one was a bit helpful but that’s more
helpful. [Case 9, Interview 6]
The reason I used the reviews was to see if there were any problems coming up like it breaking
down which is what my previous experience had been. [Case 6, Pilot 6]
The second subtheme of ‘review helpfulness’ that emerged was that of value. Participants
often pointed out aspects of reviews they considered as helpful as those which added some
kind of additional value to existing information. This perception of ‘additional value’ stemmed
from the notion of what the participants perceived they were able to learn from online cus-
tomer reviews that they couldn’t obtain elsewhere (with some participants making more
specific references to information provided by marketers). The following examples typify
this point;
You get things like this (points to screen). You know the back scratches really easily. You don’t get
that from the manufacturer. They will advise you to buy a case but they won’t tell you the reason
why. They are not going to say ‘oh by the way, the plastic we use on the back of the battery case
is really going to scratch. [Case 7, Interview 1]
I went on holiday to Egypt once and I read on the reviews that they stuck the British in this back
end hole of the hotel out of the way, and kept all the nice rooms for the German and the French.
So when they stuck me in that room when I hadn’t booked that, I booked a balcony room, once
I realised where they had put me, I went straight back to the hotel and said this isn’t the room
that I booked I want another one. They give me a beautiful kind of terraced room. So I think it’s
useful to find out what the pitfalls are, and the ways. [Case 8, Interview 5]
As per the definition by Mudambi and Schuff (2010), the construct of ‘review helpfulness’ is
essentially determined by the extent to which it facilitates a consumers purchasing decision,
as opposed to the construct of credibility, which refers to the perceived truthfulness of an
online customer review, regardless of content. The findings of this study further reinforced
the findings of previous studies which illustrated the importance of relevance in determining
the perceived helpfulness of an online customer review (Cheung, Lee, and Rabjohn 2008).
Whilst the focal construct for this study is ‘review credibility’, it is important to understand
the characteristics of ‘review helpfulness’ as a supporting construct as discussed by the par-
ticipants of this study.
 12    C. J. Clare et al.

4.2.  Qualitative review attributes influencing credibility

Alongside review helpfulness, three additional themes emerged from the data in this cate-
gory. The first theme to be presented is that of rationality. This theme emerged as a result of
several participants describing how they would be more likely to consider the information
contained in an online customer review as credible or believable, if the opinion conveyed in
any such review was done so in a rational and considered manner, as opposed to a review
which came across as a ‘gripe’, or that the author of such reviews had some kind of agenda.
My idea of a trustworthy review is something that sounds rational, rather than some gripe,
some flipping kind of comment. Stuff like that I probably would not take much notice of at all
if any. [Case 4, Pilot 4]
This theme was often discussed in a negative context and reinforced with examples such
as the following, where participants would point out the irrationality of a review and as a
result, dismiss its credibility.
Downloaded by [Politechnika Warszawska] at 15:05 29 March 2016

For example, we saw a review where the person complained there were too many kids there.
That was last year when we went, and I’m thinking you actually booked for a holiday village
that’s designed for kids. [Case 7, Interview 1]
However, this was also discussed in a positive context. Typified by the following example,
some participants described how a balanced review which contained both positive and neg-
ative comments came across as more rational and as if they were not writing to an agenda
(as described in the example above from case 4).
A good review is one that takes both the good and the bad into account and is balanced. I
think that’s more trustworthy as they have showed they’re not exactly writing to an agenda
and they’re prepared to show their interpretation in the most neutral way that they possibly
can. [Case 3, Pilot 3]
The second theme that emerged from the data was the theme of competence. This theme
emerged from the views of several participants whom found reason to doubt the compe-
tence of the author of an online customer review based on the participants own interpre-
tation of a review’s content.
Something that I do know about a digital camera is you don’t just point and press. You press it,
hold it, and it does the adjustment for you. That’s just some numpty who doesn’t know how to
do it and is using it wrong. [Case 10, Interview 7]
Without meaning to sound patronising that just doesn’t look particularly well informed anyway.
There’s typo’s in it, ‘had hi hopes’, the punctuation, the way it’s written, just sounds like somebody
who didn’t really know what they were doing in the first place. I could be completely wide of
the mark but that just doesn’t look credible and I wouldn’t really take any notice of that. [Case
4, Interview 4]
As typified by the above examples, the theme of competence (or incompetence) often
emerged from a negative context where aspects of the content of a review, such as poor
use of grammar, or the review describing something which the participant perceived as
being wrong, would result in the participant questioning the competence of the author and
dismissing the credibility of the review as a result.
The final theme to be presented in this subsection is that of honesty, which was encap-
sulated by the following example.
[When asked the third lead question regarding why he would trust this particular review] If I
was to have met that person, it’s almost like I asked this person what would you say about that
family cycling holiday … and it’s given me an honest, or what looks like, an honest account,
 Journal of Marketing Communications   13

it’s not over the top, it’s not glorifying it in any way, and it sounds like a natural, conversational
response. [Case 4, Interview 4]
In addition to the tone of a review, this idea of honesty also emerged from the content of
a review, such as the review amending the review as a result of their admission of making
a mistake with the initial review (with this admission being communicated in the updated
review). The underlying implication with both examples however was that a review which
were perceived to sound like a ‘natural’ response was perceived by the participants to be
more honest, believable and less likely to be someone writing to an agenda.

4.3.  Quantitative review attributes

The first theme to be presented in this category is the theme of consistency. In the context
of evaluating an individual review, the theme of consistency reflected the influence of reoc-
Downloaded by [Politechnika Warszawska] at 15:05 29 March 2016

curring aspects of information across either a single message-set or multiple message-sets.

Various participants indicated that they would more likely to trust the contents of a review
if they saw similar points raised in other reviews (sometimes spread across a range of plat-
forms) as typified in the following example.
It’s hard to trust a singular consumer review. You tend to trust them as a group that correlate to
similar responses. For example, if 10 people out of 12 commented on a similar positive feature,
you would believe it. [Case 5, Pilot 5]
The second theme presented is that of timeliness. Throughout the interview process, several
participants dismissed the credibility of any review they perceived to be ‘out of date’,
Sometimes we got this idea that the more recent reviews are the more useful as from my expe-
rience, things change quickly in the hotel business. [Case 11, Interview 8]
As typified in the above example, the assumption amongst participants was the more recent
reviews contained information that was more up to date, especially in industries where
things change fast.
The final theme presented in this subsection is verification. Despite only being discussed
by a single participant, this theme touched on an important issue.
I know that in order to provide a review you need to have actually stayed at the hotel, and
booked through booking.com because they send you this link right after your stay has ended
and they send you this in which you need to review your overall experience with the hotel. I
have already used it myself, I know it’s credible, so why not trust other people who have used
the site and stayed in this hotel. [Case 1, Interview 3]
Like the themes of rationality and honesty, this theme also emerged as a response to reviews
perceived to be ‘writing to an agenda’. In the context of this theme, participants explained
how they would be more likely to believe a review where there was a process in place which
ensured reviewers had actually bought the product in question, making more likely that
they bought a product or service and had genuine reasons for the opinion they conveyed
and less likely that they would be writing to an agenda.

4.4.  Factors related to personal experience

The first theme to be presented related to the personal experience is that of product knowl-
edge. Previous quantitative studies on EWOM credibility (Cheung et al. 2009) demonstrated
that consumers are more likely to deem information from EWOM as credible if it confirms
 14    C. J. Clare et al.

what they already know. This theme reaffirms this point, as it emerged from discussions
which implied how a participant’s own product knowledge was often a strong influence on
the perceived credibility of an online customer review.
When I booked a holiday this year to go to Lanzarote, there were negative reviews about the
pool being a salt water pool. I’ve been to Lanzarote before and there are no fresh water pools
in Lanzarote. [Case 7, Interview 1]
I mean I have had headphones before, you can’t sleep or anything like that because of the way
headphones are, so I could just discard that straight away because I know that’s wrong, well it’s
not expected from headphones. [Case 2, Interview 2]
Some of the above examples also support the themes of rationality and competency detailed
in Section 4.3, illustrating how product knowledge could influence participant’s perception of
the rationality of a review or competence of a reviewer. For example, one would have to ask
whether the participants of seven and eight would have responded to the respective reviews
Downloaded by [Politechnika Warszawska] at 15:05 29 March 2016

as they did if they were not aware that or that there were no freshwater pools in Lanzarote?
The second theme to be presented in this category is review preconception. This theme
demonstrates how a variety of preconceptions related to online customer reviews as a source
of information influenced credibility evaluations. As stated in Section 3, procedures were put
in place to ensure that the participants of this research had enough trust in online customer
reviews as a source of information to warrant using them to assist with purchasing decisions,
so the preconceptions discussed only served to strengthen credibility ratings.
Participants discussed a range of preconceptions which served to increase their per-
ception of online customer reviews in general as a credible source of information, such as
conceptions that online customer reviews contained up to date information, and that they
were often based on peoples experience with a product or service in day-to-day life, as
opposed to being based on lab tests.
But with reviews you get usability over a longer period of time. So you get someone, not some-
one who is sitting in an office, for example you have got the mobile phone, you buy a mobile
phone and for example their going to test it in a lab. But they are not testing it as in someone
walking about with it in their back pocket all day, dropping it on the table… [Case 7, Interview 1]
One thing you wouldn’t get as that (review) is up to date is the fact you have to book it in
advance. That’s because as it says, I wasn’t aware it was because of the terrorist aspect, I thought
it was so busy, but that suggest to me as that is up to date, you might not get that in a book.
[Case 9, Interview 6]
There was evidence to suggest that positive past experience s contributed to these positive
preconceptions. Various participants described how consulting online customer reviews for
previous purchases had served them well, which in turn increased their general credibility
perceptions of online customer reviews as a reliable source of information.
It’s worked for us, and it’s worked for us for some holidays that we decided not to go on. We have
avoided locations purely because of reviews from other people. [Case 7, Interview 1]
I do look at reviews before I book a hotel; I have not found any to be misleading. They have
usually lived up to what they have said. It’s just to get a general picture. [Case 9, Interview 6]

4.5.  ‘Helpfulness’ and ‘credibility’ – a reciprocal relationship

As demonstrated in Figure 4, the extracts from the findings illustrated a reciprocal relation-
ship between review helpfulness and review credibility, showing how the two constructs
 Journal of Marketing Communications   15

Review
consultation
Provides an Determines
opportunity to which
develop perceptions factors
of Increases Increases influence
future future
incidents of incidents of

Review Underpins Review

credibility helpfulness
Enhances

Figure 5. Relating review consultation, review helpfulness and review credibility.

Downloaded by [Politechnika Warszawska] at 15:05 29 March 2016

supported one another. Throughout the interview process, participants found reviews from
a variety of sources such as TripAdvisor and Amazon that they deemed to be credible or
‘believable’, but would dismiss the significance of this credibility if the content of the review
was unhelpful or not relevant. This point is typified in the following extract.
[Quoting the review] ‘Friendly and welcoming’ that’s not something I am fussed about in London
as I am not going to spend time with the staff. If I was going to a leisure hotel in the Scottish
Highlands and I wanted to have my meals there then maybe, but I would be more interested
in getting in and out without having to queue up. So these aren’t particularly helpful to me at
this stage. [Case 11, Interview 8]
Conversely, participants also described how reviews that initially seemed helpful could be
hampered if factors supporting credibility were missing, such as number of supporting
reviews or the date the review was posted. This was typified in the following examples:
I’m looking at 2005 when really I should be looking at a bit closer to the … that particular one,
you’re saying is that helpful. Yes, I mean it would be helpful to know but I mean this one here,
2005 don’t want that, I’m really not interested in reviews from five years ago. I want the more
recent ones. [Case 7, Interview 1]
It’s hard to trust a singular consumer review. You tend to trust them as a group that correlate to
similar responses. For example, if 10 people out of 12 commented on a similar positive feature,
you would believe it. [Case 5, Pilot 5]
Whilst no definitive conclusions can be drawn from this due to the qualitative nature of the
work, the findings here would suggest that the significance of the credibility or believability
of an online customer review is dependent on how helpful a review is perceived, and vice
versa. As the examples above imply, whilst a review may be ‘believable’, this quality was not
significant if the content of a review was not relevant to the participant’s needs in the same
manner that the helpfulness of the review was insignificant if it did not meet credibility
criteria.

5.  Discussion and conclusions

The research objective of this paper was to contribute to the understanding of factors that
influence perceptions of review credibility, using receivers’ testimonies as the primary unit of
analysis in order to provide a more holistic understanding of a consumer’s lived experience
 16    C. J. Clare et al.

of using online customer reviews to assist with purchasing decisions. A range of frameworks
have been utilised in previous EWOM research in order to categorise the factors that influ-
ence the credibility of online customer reviews, such as informational and normative factors
underpinned by dual process theory (Deutch and Gerrard 1955). Whilst the categories that
emerged from this research resembled these categories in some way, they did not adequately
reflect the key factors influencing credibility in the context of this research. Arguably, the key
influencing factors in this research bore greater resemblance to attribution theory (Heider
1958; Sen and Lerman 2007) which suggests that readers will attribute the recommendation
of online customer reviews to reviewer related reasons or product related reasons, and base
their decision on whether to use this review on the casual inferences made about a reviewer’s
motivations for writing a review. This research offered some evidence of this not only in a
negative light, when they dismissed the credibility of an online customer review based on
negative inferences made about the reviewer, but also in a positive light in instances when
Downloaded by [Politechnika Warszawska] at 15:05 29 March 2016

reviewers changed their reviews at a later date, thus reflecting a sense of honesty.
The literature review demonstrated how in previous research ‘review helpfulness’ and
‘review credibility’ have been defined and researched as separate constructs. Figure 5 demon-
strates how the findings of this study demonstrate a three-way relationship between the
constructs of review consultation, review helpfulness and review credibility.
The extracts from the findings indicated the existence of a reciprocal relationship between
the constructs of ‘review helpfulness’ and ‘review credibility’. Examples were provided of
instances where a participant encountered a review that meets all their criteria of a credible
review, yet if the content of the review was not relevant to them and did not provide any
content which facilitated their purchase decision then its credibility would be meaningless.
Conversely, the findings also demonstrated examples where the information contained in
reviews was deemed to meet criteria that met perceptions of a helpful review, but the poten-
tial impact of this review on a purchasing decision was hampered due to the participant
doubting the review’s credibility. Whilst the focus of this study is on the construct of credibil-
ity, it has provided evidence to suggest that studying the constructs of ‘review helpfulness’
and ‘review credibility’ mutually could further existing understanding of them. However, due
to the qualitative nature of this research, this research was only able to identify a potential
relationship between the two constructs and unable to offer a significant conclusion regard-
ing the extent of this relationship. It is recommended that this relationship is investigated
further using methods that generate measurable data.
Two particular limitations of this study need to be noted. One of which is the limitations
related to the sample, in terms of both sample size and geographical diversity. Whilst it is
fully acknowledged that a larger sample may have resulted in the generation of further
themes, it was judged that theoretical saturation had been reached at this point. This deci-
sion was also partially justified by evidence from existing research that illustrated how in a
large-scale research project consisting of 60 interviews, 92% of the themes were identified
after 12 interviews (Guest, Bunce, and Johnson 2006).
The second limitation of this study is regarding the personal factors that moderate how
various informational and normative factors can influence the effectiveness of an online
customer review. Existing research provided strong evidence to show that the moderating
influences of product type and involvement could moderate how the participants of this
study perceived the helpfulness and credibility of an online customer review (Park, Jumin,
and Ingoo 2007; Mudambi and Schuff 2010). It was assumed based on this evidence that it
 Journal of Marketing Communications   17

was highly probable a participant’s level of involvement and product choice in the purchas-
ing decision they discussed in the interviews influenced their interpretations of the online
customer reviews used as the stimulus for a discussion. Whilst using individual interviews
offered many advantages over using quantitative methods, one of the limitations of using
this method was that it was not always possible to accurately and objectively measure, or
even to make accurate and informed subjective judgements on a participant’s involvement
in the purchase they discussed in the interviews.
Research clearly demonstrates that online customer reviews are a powerful influence over
purchasing decisions (see Section 2.1), hence it is in the interest of any practitioner wishing to
utilise them for marketing purposes to understand how to maximise their potential impact.
The factors of influence in this study were in the context of evaluating the credibility of
singular online customer reviews, as opposed to a message-set or online customer reviews
as a source of information. In the context of marketing communications, it is possible for
Downloaded by [Politechnika Warszawska] at 15:05 29 March 2016

marketers to encourage the presence of these factors within a single review through the
format which they impose on the writer. Existing review platforms demonstrate a wide
range of formats that are imposed on review writers. This research could be used by practi-
tioners as a basis for designing any such structure they wish to impose on customers who
write online customer reviews in order to maximise their impact when used as a marketing
communication tool. For future studies on the topic of review credibility, it is important that
clear distinction is made regarding the level at which credibility judgements are being stud-
ies, whether it be in the context of singular reviews, a group of reviews or online customer
reviews as a general source of information.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the reviewers of this paper for their invaluable comments throughout
the review process. These comments were instrumental in the development of this paper.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors
Carl J. Clare is a senior lecturer at Leeds Beckett University. His research interests are concerned with
the use and influence of electronic word-of-mouth on customer attitudes and decisions, and the use
of CAQDAS to facilitate qualitative data analysis.
Gillian Wright is chair of Strategic Marketing and director of Research of the Research Institute for
Business and Management at Manchester Metropolitan University, UK. Her research is concerned
with the development of stakeholder-responsive service and the knowledge infrastructures that
support this. She is editor of Marketing Intelligence and Planning and a member of the European
Doctoral Association Executive Committee and Academy Faculty. Her professional background is in
decision-support information – as a clinical trials scientist in pharmaceuticals and a market analyst for
a multinational electronics company.
Peter Sandiford is a senior lecturer in Organisational Behaviour and Management. He joined The
University of Adelaide Business School in July 2012. Before this, he worked in a number of universities
in the United Kingdom and Hong Kong. His previous career focused on hospitality, working in hotels,
restaurants and bars internationally, although he also has experience in accounts and sales.
 18    C. J. Clare et al.

Alberto Paucar Caceres is a professor of Management Systems at Manchester Metropolitan University.

His work has been published in a number of international journals including the Journal of Operational
Research, OMEGA (International Journal of Management Science), Systems Research and Behavioural
Research and Systemic Practice and Action Research. He also served as editor and associate editor for
Systems Research and Behavioural Research.

References
Amblee, N., and T. Bui. 2008. “Can Brand Reputation Improve the Odds of Being Reviewed on-Line?”
International Journal of Electronic Commerce 12 (3): 11–28.
Arndt, J. 1967. “Word of Mouth Advertising and Informal Communication.” In Risk Taking and Information
Handling in Consumer Behaviour, edited by D. Cox, 188–239. Boston: Harvard Business.
Bailey, A. A. 2005. “Consumer Awareness and Use of Product Review Websites.” Journal of Interactive
Advertising 6 (1): 68–81.
Downloaded by [Politechnika Warszawska] at 15:05 29 March 2016

Bansal, H. S., and P. A. Voyer. 2000. “Word-of-Mouth Processes within a Services Purchase Decision
Context.” Journal of Service Research 3 (2): 166–177.
Bickhart, B., and R. Schindler. 2001. “Internet Forums as Influential Sources of Consumer Information.”
Journal of Interactive Marketing 15 (3): 31–40.
Black, H. D., and S. W. Kelley. 2009. “A Storytelling Perspective on Online Customer Reviews Reporting
Service Failure and Recovery.” Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 26 (2): 169–179.
Bloch, P. H., D. L. Sherell, and N. Ridgeway. 1986. “Consumer Search: An Extended Framework.” Journal
of Consumer Research 13 (1): 119–126.
Braun, V., and V. Clarke. 2006. “Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology.” Qualitative Research in Psychology
3 (2): 77–101.
Bringer, J. D., L. D. Johnston, and C. D. Brackenridge. 2004. “Maximising Transparency in a Doctoral
Thesis; the Complexities of Writing about the Use of QSR*NVIVO within a Grounded Theory Study.”
Qualitative Research 4 (2): 247–265.
Brown, J., A. Broderick, and N. Lee. 2007. “Word-of-mouth Communications within Online Communities;
Conceptualising the Social Network.” Journal of Interactive Marketing 21 (3): 1–20.
Chan, Y. Y. Y., and E. W. T. Ngai. 2011. “Conceptualising Electronic Word of Mouth Activity: An Input-
Process-Output Perspective.” Marketing Intelligence & Planning 29 (5): 488–516.
Cheung, M. Y., L. Chuan, L. S. Choon, and C. Huaping. 2009. “Credibility of Electronic Word-of-Mouth:
Informational and Normative Determinants of on-Line Consumer Recommendations.” International
Journal of Electronic Commerce 13 (4): 9–38.
Cheung, C. M. K., M. K. O. Lee, and N. Rabjohn. 2008. “The Impact of Electronic Word-of-Mouth: The
Adoption of Online Opinions in Online Customer Communities.” Internet Research 18 (3): 229–247.
Cheung, C. M. K. and D. R. Thadani (2010). “The State of Electronic Word-Of-Mouth Research: A Literature
Analysis.” In PACIS 2010 Proceedings. Paper 151, Taipei.
Chevalier, J., and D. Mayzlin. 2006. “The Effect of Word of Mouth on Sales: Online Book Reviews.” Journal
of Marketing Research 43 (3): 345–354.
Clare, C. (2012). “CAQDAS: Deconstructing Critiques, Reconstructing Expectatons.” In Manchester
Metropolitan University 15th Annual Doctoral Symposium, Manchester.
Clemons, E. K. 2008. “How Information Changes Consumer Behavior and How Consumer Behavior
Determines Corporate Strategy.” Journal of Management Information Systems 25 (2): 13–40.
Clemons, E. K., and G. Gao. 2008. “Consumer Informedness and Diverse Consumer Purchasing Behaviors:
Traditional Mass-Market, Trading down, and Trading out into the Long Tail.” Electronic Commerce
Research and Applications 7 (1): 3–17.
Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, C., G. Kossinets, J. Kleinberg and L. Lee. 2009. “How Opinions Are Received by
Online Communities: A Case Study on Amazon.Com Helpfulness Votes.” In International Conference
on the World Wide Web, New York.
Dargan, B. (2008). “Online Reviews, Whether Good or Bad, Are Always a Positive.” New Media Age, 17.
Davis, A., and D. Khazanchi. 2008. “An Empirical Study of Online Word of Mouth as a Predictor for Multi-
Product Category E-Commerce Sales.” Electronic Markets 18 (2): 130–141.
 Journal of Marketing Communications   19

Deutch, M., and H. B. Gerrard. 1955. “A Study of Normative and Informational Social Influence upon
Individual Judgment.” The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 51 (3): 629–636.
Doh, S. J., and J. S. Hwang. 2009. “How Consumers Evaluate EWOM (Electronic Word-of-Mouth)
Messages.” CyberPsychology & Behavior 12 (2): 193–197.
Eagly, A. H., W. Woods, and S. Chaiken. 1978. “Causal Inferences about Communicators and Their Effect
on Opinion Change.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36 (4): 424–435.
Flanaghan, J. C. 1954. “The Critical Incident Technique.” The Psycological Bulletin 51 (4): 327–358.
Gauri, D. K., A. Bhatnagar, and R. Rao. 2008. “Role of Word of Mouth in Online Store Loyalty.”
Communications of the ACM 51 (3): 89–91.
Goldsmith, R. E., and D. Horowitz. 2006. “Measuring Motivations for Online Opinion Seeking.” Journal
of Interactive Advertising 6 (2): 1–16.
Guest, G., A. Bunce, and L. Johnson. 2006. “How Many Interviews Are Enough?: An Experiment with
Data Saturation and Variability.” Field Methods 18 (1): 59–82.
Heider, F. 1958. The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: Wiley.
Hennig-Thurau, T., K. P. Gwinner, G. Walsh, and D. D. Gremler. 2004. “Electronic Word-of-Mouth via
Downloaded by [Politechnika Warszawska] at 15:05 29 March 2016

Consumer-opinion Platforms: What Motivates Consumer to Articulate Themselves on the Internet?”

Journal of Interactive Marketing 18 (1): 38–52.
Hennig-Thurau, T., and G. Walsh. 2003. “Electronic Word-of-Mouth: Motives for and Consequences of
Reading Customer Articulations on the Internet.” International Journal of Electronic Commerce 8 (2):
51–74.
Hogan, J. E., K. N. Lemon, and B. Libai. 2004. “Quantifying the Ripple: Word-of-Mouth and Advertising
Effectiveness.” Journal of Advertising Research 44 (3): 271–280.
Hu, N., L. Ling, and J. J. Zhang. 2008. “Do Online Reviews Affect Product Sales? The Role of Reviewer
Characteristics and Temporal Effects.” Information Technology and Management 9 (3): 201–214.
Huang, A. H., K. Chen, D. C. Yen, and T. P. Tran. 2015. “A Study of Factors That Contribute to Online Review
Helpfulness.” Computers in Human Behavior 48: 17–27.
Huang, P., N. H. Lurie, and S. Mitra. 2009. “Searching for Experience on the Web: An Empirical Examination
of Consumer Behavior for Search and Experience Goods.” Journal of Marketing 73 (2): 55–69.
Jansen, B. J., M. Zhang, K. Sobel, and A. Chowdury. 2009. “Twitter Power: Tweets as Electronic Word of
Mouth.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 60 (11): 2169–2188.
Kim, Y. 2011. “The Pilot Study in Qualitative Inquiry.” Qualitative Social Work 10 (2): 190–206.
Lee, J., D.-H. Park and I. Han. 2008. “The Effect of Negative Online Consumer Reviews on Product Attitude:
An Information Processing View.” Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 7 (3): 341–352.
Lee, M., S. Rodgers, and M. Kim. 2009. “Effects of Valence and Extremity of EWOM on Attitude toward
the Brand and Website.” Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising 31 (2): 1–11.
Leonard-Barton, D. 1985. “Experts as Negative Opinion Leaders in the Diffusion of a Technological
Innovation.” Journal of Consumer Research 11 (4): 914–926.
Litvin, S. W., R. E. Goldsmith, and B. Pan. 2008. “Electronic Word-of-Mouth in Hospitality and Tourism
Management.” Tourism Management 29 (3): 458–468.
MacIver, L. L., M. Piacentini, and D. Eadie. 2012. “Using Qualitative Methods to Understand Behaviour
Change.” Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 15 (1): 70–86.
Mazzarol, T., J. C. Sweeney, and G. N. Soutar. 2007. “Conceptualizing Word-of-Mouth Activity, Triggers
and Conditions: An Exploratory Study.” European Journal of Marketing 41 (11/12): 1475–1494.
McEleny, C. 2008. “Online Consumers Place Trust in User Reviews.” New Media Age, 11.
Merton, R. K. 1968. Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: The Free Press.
Mudambi, S. M., and D. Schuff. 2010. “What Makes a Helpful Online Review? A Study of Customer
Reviews on Amazon.Com.” MIS Quarterly 31 (1): 185–200.
Park, D.-H., L. Jumin, and H. Ingoo. 2007. “The Effect of on-Line Consumer Reviews on Consumer
Purchasing Intention: The Moderating Role of Involvement.” International Journal of Electronic
Commerce 11 (4): 125–148.
Park, D.-H., and S. Kim. 2008. “The Effects of Consumer Knowledge on Message Processing of Electronic
Word-of-Mouth via Online Consumer Reviews.” Electronic Commerce Research & Applications 7 (4):
399–410.
 20    C. J. Clare et al.

Park, C., and T. M. Lee. 2009. “Antecedents of Online Reviews’ Usage and Purchase Influence: An Empirical
Comparison of U.S. and Korean Consumers.” Journal of Interactive Marketing 23 (4): 332–340.
Patton, M. Q. 2002. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pillier, C. 1999. “Everyone is a Critic in Cyberspace.” Los Angeles Times.
Robins, D., and J. Holmes. 2008. “Aesthetics and Credibility in Web Site Design.” Information Processing
& Management 44 (1): 386–399.
Ruef, M., H. E. Aldrich, and N. M. Carter. 2003. “The Structure of Founding Teams: Homophily, Strong
Ties, and Isolation among U.S. Entrepreneurs.” American Sociological Review 68 (2): 195–222.
Sampson, H. 2004. “Navigating the Waves: The Usefulness of a Pilot in Qualitative Research.” Qualitative
Research 4 (3): 383–402.
Sen, S. and D. Lerman (2007). “Why Are You Telling Me This? An Examination into Negative Consumer
Reviews on the Web.” Journal of Interactive Marketing 21(4): 76–94.
Senecal, S., and J. Nantel. 2004. “The Influence of Online Product Recommendations on Consumers’
Online Choices.” Journal of Retailing 80 (2): 159–169.
Sorensen, A. T. and S. J. Rasmussen. 2004. Is Any Publicity Good Publicity? A Note on the Impact of Book
Downloaded by [Politechnika Warszawska] at 15:05 29 March 2016

Reviews, Working Paper. Stanford University.

Sher, P. J., and S. H. Lee. 2009. “Consumer Skepticism and Online Reviews: An Elaboration Likelihood
Model Perspective.” Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal 37 (1): 137–143.
Stern, B. B. 1994. “A Revised Communication Model for Advertising: Multiple Dimensions of the Source,
the Message, and the Recipient.” Journal of Advertising 23 (2): 5–15.
Sweeney, J. C., G. N. Soutar, and T. Mazzarol. 2008. “Factors Influencing Word of Mouth Effectiveness:
Receiver Perspectives.” European Journal of Marketing 42 (3/4): 344–364.
Tractinsky, N., A. Cokhavi, M. Kirschenbaum, and T. Sharfi. 2006. “Evaluating the Consistency of
Immediate Aesthetic Perceptions of Web Pages.” International Journal of Human-Computer Studies
64 (11): 1071–1083.
Vermeulen, I. E., and D. Seegers. 2009. “Tried and Tested: The Impact of Online Hotel Reviews on
Consumer Consideration.” Tourism Management 30 (1): 123–127.
Walsh, C. 2007. “Online Reviews Drive Net Sales.” Travel Trade Gazette UK & Ireland (2791): 24–24.
White, S. 2007. “Online Reviews: The Truth Be Told?” Air Conditioning Heating & Refrigeration News 232
(5): 18–18.
Wu, P. F., H. V. D. Heijden, and N. T. Korfiatis. 2011. “The Influences of Negativity and Review Quality on
the Helpfulness of Online Reviews.” In Thirty Second International Conference on Information Systems,
Shanghai.
Ye, Q., R. Law, and B. Gu. 2009. “The Impact of Online User Reviews on Hotel Room Sales.” International
Journal of Hospitality Management 28 (1): 180–182.
Zhang, W. and S. Watts. 2003. “Knowledge Adoption in Online Communities of Practice.” In 24th
International Conference on Information Systems, edited by S. T. March, A. Massey, and J. I. DeGross.
Atlanta.