Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 68 (2022) 103066

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jretconser

Measuring the impact of online reviews on consumer purchase decisions –

A scale development study
Semila Fernandes a, b, Rajesh Panda c, V.G. Venkatesh d, *, Biranchi Narayan Swar e,
Yangyan Shi f, g, **
a
Symbiosis Institute of Business Management, Bengaluru, India
b
Symbiosis International (Deemed University), Pune, India
c
Xavier Institute of Management, XIM University, Bhubaneswar, India
d
EM Normandie Business School, METIS Lab, France
e
Management Development Institute, Murshidabad, India
f
School of Economics and Management, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan, China
g
Macquarie Business School, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Consumers’ exposure to online reviews influences their online retail shopping behavior. They search for reviews
Consumer psychology while evaluating products for purchase decisions. Past studies have indicated that online reviews affect the
Retailing credibility and trust of the sellers and the products they sell on online platforms. Keeping this in view, the current
Scale development
paper aims to develop and validate a scale to understand the impact of online reviews on consumer purchase
Purchase decision. online reviews
Word-of-mouth.
decisions. Data were collected from 431 young online shoppers for this research. The initial exploratory factor
analysis (EFA) results helped identify four factors, viz. source credibility, volume, language and comprehension, and
relevance which constitute the scale. The scale was validated by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The study’s
findings fill the gap of having a standardized scale that online retailers can use as indicators to assist consumers
in their online decision-making. The discussions and implications support consumers’ susceptibility to online
reviews, an essential source for product and brand information in facilitating online consumers’ purchase
decisions.

1. Introduction (Morrison, 2015). A ‘sales assistant’ assists a consumer by searching for

In October 2020, research by Wall Street Journal revealed surprising
factual statistics every business would want to know and the importance
of online reviews (The Wall Street Journal, 2020). Firms need to capi­
talize on their understanding of online reviews as online shoppers
consider online reviews as channels of getting product information
while making purchase decisions (Fu et al., 2020). Newspaper articles
viz. business news daily in November 2021 also guided firms towards
the dynamics of responding to an online review (Business News Daily,
2021). Unlike offline purchases, customers cannot touch or feel the
product online and depend on consumer reviews (Schneider and Zielke,
2020). A Google study based on 57 million online customer reviews
indicated that these reviews influenced consumers’ purchase choices
product-attribute information; similarly, online customer reviews help
consumers identify information about a product that best matches their
needs (Schneider and Zielke, 2020). Most consumers like to go through
other consumers’ opinions about retailers’ products or services before
finalizing their purchase decisions.
The study is motivated by a specific behavior of consumers in the
online environment - consumers spend more on products with excellent
online reviews indicating the economic value of online reviews (Thakur,
2018). Extant literature underpins the importance of online reviews and
identifies a few variables that consumers rely on while making online
purchases (Li et al., 2020). Additionally, the context of this study is India
which is an emerging market. India is the second-largest online market
globally, with 622 million internet users, and it is projected that this

* Corresponding author.
** Corresponding author. School of Economics and Management, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan, China.
E-mail addresses: semila123@gmail.com (S. Fernandes), rajeshpanda.80@gmail.com (R. Panda), vgv1976@gmail.com (V.G. Venkatesh), drbiranchi.marketing@
gmail.com (B.N. Swar), ys102@hotmail.com (Y. Shi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2022.103066
Received 26 February 2022; Received in revised form 22 May 2022; Accepted 23 June 2022
Available online 9 July 2022
0969-6989/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Fernandes et al.
number will increase to 900 million by 2025 (IAMAI-Kantar, 2021). This
shows that India will be a lucrative market for online retailers to sell
their products and services with the growing online population.
Besides, 70 percent of customers refer to online reviews before
finalizing their purchase decisions, and 63 per cent of customers are
more likely to buy the product if it has higher product ratings and
positive reviews (Rauschnabel et al., 2019; MacDonald, 2018). Young
shoppers are the predominant group who buy online (Lissitsa and Kol,
2016; Singh et al., 2018). A recent study posited that a younger group of
consumers looked for online reviews and agreed that online shopping
was more convenient. Customers considered ‘reviews’ and ‘ratings’ as
two essential sources of information (Shin and Darpy, 2020). Such re­
views and opinions on the web and e-commerce portals have been
referred to as e-WOM (electronic Word of Mouth).
Online reviews support consumers in gaining product-related infor­
mation, thereby increasing their confidence during online purchasing.
These reviews are offered as an alternative by e-commerce firms to
physically or visually interact with the product (Changchit et al., 2022).
Extant literature reveals that although users have been accustomed to
online reviews, it remains far from deliberating how users perceive
online reviews (Changchit et al., 2022). The motivation to share and
post reviews is dependent on the consumer behavior and psychological
aspects of an individual, which is more challenging to measure and
observe (Iacobucci, 2010). Extant literature has attempted to identify
individual constructs and variables that enhance e-WOM (Augusto and
Torres, 2018). Researchers have separately analyzed the variables that
explain the usefulness of online reviews, such as. quality, quantity, star
ratings, credibility, reviewer identity (Filieri et al., 2020; Nieto-Garcia
et al., 2019). However, studies suggest that individual attributes such as
star ratings, review language, positive and negative reviews, recently
received reviews, and style of writing reviews are not ideal indicators for
customers’ perceived satisfaction and quality. At a macro level, the key
challenge for retailers is to examine these attributes together in purchase
decisions. Among the various research papers that have worked on on­
line reviews, the methods adopted for measuring these individual items
of online reviews are correlation (Racherla et al., 2013), Factor analysis,
multiple regression & ANOVA (Schuckert et al., 2015), machine learning
techniques (Leung et al., 2013) and questionnaire-based studies (Iaco­
bucci, 2010). However, literature has recommended validating these
attributes through a measurement model to build the credibility of on­
line reviews (Schuckert et al., 2015). To the best of our knowledge, there
is no such scale that comprehensively measures online reviews through a
standardized scale (Schuckert et al., 2015; Kim and Song, 2018; Kyr­
iazos, 2018). To study this gap, the current study endeavors to explore
the following research question: Which reliable and valid indicators
highlight the influence of online customer reviews? This research answers
the question in three steps: identifying the research gaps and employing
focus group discussions (FGDs) to generate new items and validate the
items identified through literature, exploratory factor analysis (EFA)
followed by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to systematically purify
and validate the factor structure therebyproposing a new standard
measurement scale.
The work contributes to the retailing domain in multiple ways.
Firstly, it develops and proposes a comprehensive measurement scale to
measure online reviews. Secondly, this pioneering work in consumer
retailing proposes new items such as ‘trusting the reviews from a verified
customer’ and ‘the style of writing reviews’ that impact customers’
product purchase journeys. This will improve the measurement of online
reviews in marketing. This robust, validated scale helps analyze the
broad items and fine-tune them to reflect a few specific dimensions. This
scale will enable new theoretical underpinnings and help researchers
compare the scale across cultures and markets.
The paper has six sections. Section 1 includes the introduction;
Section 2 includes the theoretical and literature background. Section 3
elucidates the methodology and the scale development procedure. Our
empirical scale development and validation process comprise three
2
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 68 (2022) 103066
studies that confirm the reliability and validity of the instrument.
Finally, we present how marketers can apply for online reviews in our
relevant discussions in Section 4. Section 5 contributes to the study,
including theoretical and managerial implications. Section 6 concludes
with limitations and future research agenda.
2. Theoretical and literature background
2.1. Electronic-word of mouth and online reviews
Word-of-Mouth (WOM) is a dominant force in influencing con­
sumers’ decisions. Electronic-WOM (e-WOM) is gaining prominence and
is recognized as the new communication medium (Choi and Maasberg,
2021). e-WOM refers to informal means of communication directed to­
wards consumers adopting internet-based technology, which compre­
hends various websites and media forms, including online customer
reviews (Gottschalk and Mafael, 2017). These consumer-generated on­
line reviews for products and services are increasing in importance and
popularity (Lee and Choeh, 2018). Research has indicated that e-WOM is
frequently generated through social media and online shopping plat­
forms. Research scholars have confirmed that these platforms of e-WOM
influence purchase decisions (Duarte et al., 2018). e-WOM in online
shopping platforms is generated through online reviews by existing
buyers. These online customer reviews are recognized as one of the
pivotal forms of e-WOM. It has also been seen that when consumers are
making product decisions, they rely more on online reviews (Choi and
Maasberg, 2021). Moreover, consumers look for the total number of
online reviews as qualifying items, reflecting upon the popularity and
awareness of that product or service (Chen et al., 2017).
Consumer-generated online reviews gauge the persuasion of e-WOM
with a specific focus on the perceived effectiveness and trustworthiness
of reviews (Srivastava and Kalro, 2019).
2.2. Attributes of online reviews and consumer purchase decisions
Online content in the form of online reviews is becoming increas­
ingly popular in Internet-Based Marketing (Choi and Maasberg, 2021).
Online reviews significantly influence consumers’ purchase intention
(Huang et al., 2019). Reviews usually reflect upon arguments that the
consumers categorize into pros and cons or positive arguments and
opposing arguments (Risselada et al., 2018). Negative reviews discon­
firmation has more significant and stronger effects than positive reviews
disconfirmation (Li et al., 2020). In addition to the number of online
reviews, the type of reviews also impacts f consumers, potentially
yielding better purchase intention results. Studies showed that online
reviews generated through internet forums are perceived to be much
more credible and trustworthy than the corporate websites generated by
the marketer. Consumers go through online reviews across multiple sites
and internet forums (Thakur, 2018). These number/quantity of reviews
and their types/quality positively influence the credibility and trust of
the seller/product (Ismagilova et al., 2020). As the number of reviews
increases in the online environment, obtaining specific information
becomes difficult, and hence consumers look out for heuristic cues like
the star ratings to simplify their search and evaluation process (Yi and
Oh, 2022; El-Said, 2020).
Recent/current reviews reflect upon the evidence about the products
and services, thereby showcasing higher credibility (Shareef et al.,
2019). The study conducted by Shaheen et al. (2019) found that the
usefulness of online customer reviews and credibility induces the
adoption of reviews and the propensity to trust online retailers. Simi­
larly, consumers believe negative reviews to be much more authentic
than positive reviews, even in online buying behavior. Negative reviews
have a more substantial influence on consumers’ assessment of services
or products and purchase intention against a positive message (Weis­
stein et al., 2017). Research has also indicated that the attributes of
online reviews such as the richness of the review, review ratings, their
S. Fernandes et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 68 (2022) 103066

relevance (Nieto-Garcia et al., 2019), and the reviewers’ identity dis­ Table 1
closures and their level of expertise (Munzel, 2016; Chen et al., 2017) Summary of recent notable works.
depict positive influence towards an online purchase decision. Re­ Sl. Authors/Year Concept Key Findings
searchers have also discovered that consumers value the online gener­ No
ated reviews only when the reviewer has an experience of using the 1 Choi & Maasberg Effects of product Online reviews had a
product or service (Stein and Ramaseshan, 2016). Empirical studies (2021) reviews persuasive impact on
have also posited how online reviews are written, which subtly affects consumers’ processing of
consumers’ purchase decisions (Dixit et al., 2019). The semantic con­ information.
2 Hsieh and Li Susceptibility towards Trustworthiness, fairness,
tent, language, and style of writing consumer reviews influence online (2020) Source Credibility and justifiability of the
consumer sales. Linguistic style and Content are inseparable and rein­ source were significant.
force the impact of online reviews, thereby making the review clearer 3 Mariani. and Online reviewers’ Review ratings, review
and more unambiguous, and appealing to the reader (Stein and Ram­ Predvoditeleva behavior comments, helpful votes,
(2019) and length of the textual
aseshan, 2016).
review positively impact
The literature supported the relationship between pre-purchase in­ review continuity and
formation (online reviews) and purchase decisions (Saha and Sahney, frequency.
2022). Furthermore, the data collected from inbound tourists in China 4 Mariani and Type of Reviewers Helpful reviewers are those
also reflected the influence of online reviews on the sale of consumer Predvoditeleva who post reviews and
(2019) actively travel more.
products (Siddiqi et al., 2020). The studies also recognized the role of 5 Nieto-Garcia et al. Reputation and Message and messenger
online reviews, both valence and volume, in creating trust among con­ (2019) expertise of the determine review
sumers while shopping. The study revealed that reviews enhance the Reviewer, star ratings, usefulness.
effect of a positive summary review on trust (Sebastianelli and Tamimi, and length of reviews
6 Heng et al. (2018) Social media platforms Results indicated that
2018). In the hotel industry, the positive valence rate of reviews and the
as a source of review quality and source
number of reviews significantly impact online hotel booking (Fu et al., knowledge on brands were essential items
2021). Studies have also demonstrated the impact of online reviews on influencing the credibility
travelers’ online hotel booking intentions. Researchers identified mul­ of the consumer towards
tiple attributes of online reviews, such as usefulness, reviewer expertise, assessment of online
review.
timeliness, volume, and valence (negative and positive) (Zhao et al.,
7 Hajli (2018) Information credibility Online WOM was found to
2015). The results revealed a significantly negative relation between be a credible and helpful
negative online reviews and online booking intentions. However, posi­ piece of information.
tive online reviews upon booking intentions in isolation might not in­ 8 Chen et al. (2017) Identity of reviewers on Quantitative variables of
the social media reviews, viz. overall review
fluence purchase, and hence there is a need to explore additional
platform ratings, hotel stars,
attributes that drives purchase decision (Zhao et al., 2015). Moreover, reviewer identity, etc., are
studies posited that an increase in online reviews alone has no signifi­ helpful on social media.
cant impact on selling online (Davis and Khazanchi, 2008). In the case of 9 Chen et al. (2017) e-WOM and When e-WOM valence was
online shopping, negative online reviews impact consumers’ purchase association-based positive, corporate posting
strategy for corporate on consumers’ CSR
decisions more than positive reviews (Jin, 2007).
posting on social media associations was
Consumers can evaluate better when reviewers indicate their per­ significant.
sonal identity/real name with a photo (Kim, 2020; Mariani and Pre­ 10 Hsu et al. (2017) Online reviews on Lower purchase intention
dvoditeleva, 2019). A positive relationship between reviewer expertise purchase intention was observed when
subjects were exposed to
and people’s purchase intentions was observed in extant literature (Tan
harmful online customer
et al., 2008). It has thus been important for reviewers to fully identify reviews.
their individuality while posting online content to qualify the source as 11 Zhao et al. (2019) Online textual reviews Length of the reviews
credible, although it is not mandatory (Ismagilova et al., 2020). Profile reduces customer
photos of the reviewers also help improve the credibility of their reviews satisfaction levels.
12 Weisstein et al. Negative online WOM Consensus in online
(Kim et al., 2020). Thus, consumers’ purchase decisions are influenced
(2017) communication negative WOM
when there is an interaction between the facial expression of the communication impacts
reviewer and the content of online reviews, which provides a strength of potential evaluations of the
intention to purchase the product (Heng et al., 2018). Table 1 provides a firm.
13 El-Said (2020) Responding to single A complaint framework
summary of recent notable works.
star reviews was developed for lower-
Overall, the above review establishes that online reviews (a promi­ star rating reviews.
nent form of e-WOM) are an essential force that influences consumers’
online purchases. Consumers frequently refer to online reviews and are
primarily dependent on the type of responses shared by the reviewers. 3. Research methodology
The researchers indicated that the reviewer’s expertise, star ratings,
length of reviews, the credibility of information, reviewers’ behavior, 3.1. Scale development procedure
and the reviewer’s identity are the key factors that impact potential
evaluations of consumers’ purchase journey. However, such variables The research article adopts recognized procedures of Churchill
have not yet been grouped to constitute a scale for measuring online (1979) and Brod et al. (2009) to construct the measurement scale: a
reviews. This study identifies relevant variables and develops a mea­ qualitative and quantitative study involving a consumer survey followed
surement model to propose a scale for online reviews based on the by a purification study and data validation. Fig. 1 below depicts the
literature review. research scheme adopted for the scale development procedure.

3
S. Fernandes et al.
Fig. 1. Research Scheme for Scale development.
Several inquiry types are imperative to develop generalizability and
improve the scale’s validity (Spake et al., 2003). On that recommen­
dation, the present study focuses on three phases as below:
The first phase – Qutative Study: Variables to be part of the study were
identified through literature. This was followed by Four mixed-sex Focus
Group Discussions (FGDs) with 10–12 shoppers each, which helped
explore variables and check the applicability of variables identified
through literature.
The second phase – Purification: Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA),
was conducted with 380 respondents, which resulted in four-
dimensional factors – Source Credibility, Volume, Language Comprehen­
sion, and Relevance. The same factor structure was confirmed through
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).
The third phase– Validation: CFA was administered with a new set of
278 participants, and the 17-item scale termed ‘Online Review’ was
validated.
3.2. Qualitative inquiry approach
The qualitative inquiry approach was followed by reviewing extant
literature and involving focus group discussions (FGDs). This approach
helped in item generation. The literature-generated item pools are re­
flected in the statements below: Studies have indicated that consumers
pay attention to online customer reviews (Kim and Song, 2018). These
online generated reviews reflect upon the arguments that shoppers
categorize into positive and negative arguments based on the pros and
cons of the reviews (Risselada H. et al., 2018). Additionally, the number
of reviews is considered anchored by consumers who provide aggregate
review content rather than individual reviews (Grewal et al., 2020). It is
not only about the number of reviews, but consumers search for heu­
ristic cues in the form of star ratings that will simplify their search and
evaluation process (El-Said, 2020; Herhausen et al., 2015).
On another side, extreme views depicted through ratings (5-star or 1-
star) matter to the shopper when evaluating their choices (El-Said,
2020). In comparison, recent or current reviews are more credible in
providing evidence about the products they search for (Shareef et al.,
2019). Research has posited that consumers value those
online-generated reviews reviewed based on their product use and
experience (Ahani et al., 2019). Studies have reported that when re­
viewers reveal their identity or their real name and photo, consumers
are better positioned to evaluate their product and service choice as they
get connected and relate to the overall experience (Munzel, 2016).
Consumers get positively influenced by these attributes of online
customer reviews where reviewers’ identity disclosures and level of
expertise are revealed (Mariani and Predvoditeleva, 2019). Literature
has depicted that consumer weighs negative messages much more than
positive messages in their evaluation criteria (Weisstein et al., 2017).
Hence, the sellers and managers need to respond immediately, effec­
tively, and authenticate these negative messages to generate positive
4
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 68 (2022) 103066
customer loyalty (El-Adly, 2019). Researchers have argued that in
addition to the semantic content of the messages, linguistic styles also
shape shoppers’ choice decisions (Tran and Strutton, 2020).
Further, clear and unambiguous reviews appeal to the readers,
reinforcing the influence of the reviews (Stein and Ramaseshan, 2016).
Finally, shoppers go through online customer reviews across multiple
websites, chats, and internet forums to support their purchase decisions
(Goes et al., 2014). As prompted by extant studies, the factors that in­
fluence consumers’ online shopping environment are stated below:
1. I look for reviews that describe the benefit/problem of the
product (Kawaf and Istanbulluoglu, 2019).
2. I look for reviews at multiple sites to confirm the review scores
(Goes et al., 2014).
3. The average score/star rating is essential for a product (El-Said,
2020).
4. I prefer that the reviews included are appealing and straightfor­
ward (Tran and Strutton, 2020).
5. I prefer that reviews supported by relevant arguments are critical
(Risselada H. et al., 2018).
6. If the number of reviews are less, I hesitate to consider the re­
views while buying the product (Grewal et al., 2020).
7. Negative reviews influence more than positive reviews (Weisstein
et al., 2017).
8. I trust the information more when I believe the reviewer has
adequate knowledge/expertise of the product (Vermeulen and
Seegers, 2009).
9. I look for extreme views (5-star or 1-star) while evaluating a
product (Sen and Lerman, 2007).
10. The reviews are more credible if the name/image of the reviewer
is available (Munzel, 2016).
11. I believe reviews impact my decision to purchase or not to pur­
chase a product (Kim and Song, 2018; Hsu et al., 2017).
12. I look for the seller’s response instead of the customers’ reviews
(Munzel, 2016).
13. The review is more helpful if the message is clear and unambig­
uous (Lu et al., 2018).
14. Recent reviews are more important than older ones (Lee et al.,
2017).
15. I believe the review is more credible when the reviewer is the
product’s user (gender/age-specific products) (Mariani and Pre­
dvoditeleva, 2019).
3.3. Assessment of face validity
Face validity is recognized as a practice of editing and generating
items by involving an expert panel. It enhances the correctness/appro­
priateness of each item before getting into the content validity stage
(Hardesty and Bearden, 2004). Face validity step of 15 items involved a
S. Fernandes et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 68 (2022) 103066

panel of experts comprising twelve industry experts (having experience respondents to assess the dimensionality of the items identified.
from 10 to 22 years) and three marketing researchers. It involved a
Delphi process to help establish the relevance of items. All the experts
3.5. Scale purification approach
agreed on the identified variables. Eighty percent of them confirmed the
items and the impact of online recommendations on the consumer
A scale-purification framework is a widely accepted approach in
purchase journey. They indicated the need to classify items to measure
empirical consumer behavior studies that distinguishes the dimension­
online reviews’ overall significance in product sales. Further, experts
ality of the constructs and item levels using statistical criteria. Those
recommended focused group discussions (FGDs) to gain more insights
criteria assess the quantitative data involving standardized techniques,
into variables and examine the content validity.
including exploratory factor analysis and comparing the cut-off values of
alpha coefficient; and confirmatory factor analysis (Wieland et al.,
3.4. Focus group discussions (FGDs) – overview, characteristics of
2017).
participants, and methodology

Four mixed-sex FGDs were held with 10–12 shoppers each. These 3.6. Stage 1: Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)
FGDs helped to have a deeper understanding on the research topic and
identify variables not addressed in the literature. The members for the EFA data was collected from 431 consumers aged 18–45 years in
FGDs were selected using the convenience sampling method by visits to Bangalore, Karnataka. Bangalore was chosen because of the rapid
universities, shopping complexes, and housing associations after taking growth of online shopping (Joshi et al., 2021). Out of 431 responses, 380
appropriate consent from the establishments of these sites. Each focus were retained for the final analysis; 51 missing and inconsistent re­
group had the basic parameters defined based on gender, education, sponses were eliminated. The sample size of 380 was appropriate,
marital status, and occupation covering a good mix of students, business especially for EFA with factor loadings greater than equal to 0.50 and no
professionals, and those in service (blue-collar and white-collar jobs) cross-loadings and reliability of greater than equals 0.70. Convenience
aged 18 and 45 years. This young segment was chosen because it is the samples were identified through housing complexes, shopping malls,
critical audience for e-tailers to understand online shopping behavior and educational campuses. The qualifying question to the respondents
(Arul Rajan, 2020). The total participants were 44, of which 25 were was: “What forms of online customer reviews do consumers rely on during
female and 19 were male. product purchase decisions?”. This confirmed that the sample has
Discussions covered the following main topics regarding e-shopping knowledge and awareness of online reviews and identifies the variables
and online reviews: related to online customer reviews in the consumer decision-making
journey. The same approach was adopted for selecting and approach­
• Factors that help influence online shopping ing respondents online. A self-administered questionnaire collected the
• The convenience of using online reviews/online texts data for both offline (310) and online participants (121). The ques­
• Impact of reviews on actual product purchases tionnaire contained 19 items, and the participants appraised the items
• Details on how consumers evaluate online reviews on a 5-point Likert-type, i.e., agree/disagree response scale, which was
• Sentiments of online reviews deemed suitable for self-administered online questionnaire studies (Hair
et al., 2010). This Likert-scale design ranges from agreement or
In the open discussion, the group members provided broad concerns disagreement with level of quality 5 = Strongly Agree, 4 = Agree, 3 =
over the underlying online reviews, their desires and interests, and sug­ Neutral, 2 = Disagree and 1 = Strongly Disagree.
gested strategies they would recommend or avoid when purchasing The 5-point response scale is the simplest of all, which allows the
goods and services in the online shopping channel. The participants also interviewer to complete reading the statements or collecting informa­
deliberated on additional insights on consumers’ behavioral mindset tion on all the scale descriptors in a short period and provides flexibility
toward referring to online reviews during e-shopping beyond the topics to respondents for the midpoint (option 3) if they are unsure of the
mentioned above. More than half of the participants (59 percent) would
prefer to trust online reviews if a credible source has contributed to Table 2
them. Around 68 percent of the participants expressed their belief in Demographic profile of the respondents.
reviews written unbiasedly. Regarding the type of reviews, 73 percent of Sl. Description Frequency %
participants reported that the top positive and negative reviews would No
help them evaluate their online product. Additionally, half of the par­ 1 Gender Male 241 63.42
ticipants (50 percent) were inclined towards an online product purchase Female 139 36.57
if the language and style of writing reviews were precise. Such feedback 2 Marital Status Married 248 65.2
guided the authors to a reality of the consumer perspectives and iden­ Unmarried 132 34.7
3 Age (in years) 18–22 63 16.58
tified four specific items. Through this exploratory phase, the following
23–27 135 35.53
four items/variables were recognized and were appended to the list of 28–32 87 22.90
15 items identified through literature: 32–36 61 16.05
>36a 34 8.9
b
16. I believe the style of writing reviews should be unbiased or 4 Monthly Income (USD = USD, 334 88 23.2
United States dollars) USD, 669 111 29.2
impartial. USD, 1,338 130 34.2
17. The information or message in the topmost negative reviews and >USD, 1,338 51 13.4
topmost positive reviews are helpful in my purchase decision. 5 Occupation Student 53 13.94
18. I trust the review only if it comes from a verified customer (The Business 27 7.10
Service 259 68.15
online retailer mentions he/she is a verified customer).
Others 41 10.79
19. The language style of reviews must be precise rather than 6 Education Graduate 112 29.47
metaphorical. Post-Graduate 234 61.58
Postgraduate & 34 8.95
In the next stage, these 19 items generated through extant literature above

and substantiated by FGDs were administered using a survey instrument a

Less than or equal to 45 years.
involving a 5-point agree/disagree Likert scale among the study b
USD equivalent to Indian Rupee.

5
S. Fernandes et al.
response. A 5-point Likert-scale design is also a good measurement
model with significantly higher reliability (Adelson and McCoach,
2010). The demographic profile of the respondents is mentioned in
Table 2.
The data received on the 19 items from the participants were
analyzed through exploratory factor analysis (EFA). They were verified
for reliability using the established principal axis factoring procedure
with varimax rotation and the eigenvalue method, which helped deter­
mine the list of factors (Hair et al., 2010). Varimax rotation, a common
form of Principal component analysis or factor analysis, resulted in four
factors with factor loadings of 0.5 and higher being considered practical
and acceptable for the analysis (Hair et al., 2010). Upon evaluation, the
items with loadings less than 0.5 and did not adequately load on either
of the factors were removed. Two items, the information or message in the
top positive and top negative reviews are helpful in my purchase decision
(Item 17), and the language style of reviews must be precise rather than
metaphorical (Item 19), were dropped from the study because of low
factor loading in EFA (with factor loadings 0.5 and lower). The results of
the EFA analysis involving the 17 items led to the identification of a
four-factor structure. The four extracted factors can be named Source
Credibility, Volume, Language Comprehension, and Relevance. The
item-factor relationship resulted in forming factor 1 having items viz. I
trust the information more when I believe the reviewer has adequate knowl­
edge/expertise of the product (Item 8); I believe the review is more credible
when the reviewer is the user of the product (gender/age-specific products)
(Item 15); I trust the review only if it comes from a verified customer (The
online retailer mentions he/she is a verified customer) (Item 18); The reviews
are more credible if the name/image of the reviewer is available (Item 10); I
look for reviews at multiple sites to confirm the review scores (Item 2); I
believe the reviews that are supported by relevant arguments are critical
(Item 5) and I look for reviews those describe the benefit/problem of the
product (Item 1).
Further, the above items indicate that online customer reviews are
perceived to be much more credible and trustworthy; hence the
construct is Source Credibility. The item-factor relationship resulted in
factor 2 having items viz. If the numbers of reviews are less, I hesitate to
consider the reviews while buying the product (Item 6); I look for extreme
views (5-star or 1-star) while evaluating a product (Item 9), and the average
score/star rating is essential for a product (Item 3). As these items validate
that the numbers of customer reviews/star ratings of online reviews are
the qualifying criteria that simplify consumer’s search and evaluation
process, the authors chose to identify this factor as Volume. The item-
factor relationship resulted in containing factor 3 having items viz.
The review is more useful if the language of reviews is simple and appealing
(Item 4); The review is more helpful if the message is clear and unambiguous
(Item 13), and I believe the style of writing reviews should be unbiased or
impartial (Item 16). These items provided evidence that the language and
the semantic content of reviews appeal to the user towards online con­
sumer sales, and hence we chose to recognize the factor as Language and
Comprehension. The item-factor relationship resulted in forming factor 4
having items viz. I look for the response of the seller in lieu of the customers’
reviews (Item 12); Negative reviews influence more than positive reviews
(Item 7); I believe reviews impact my decision to purchase or not to purchase
a product (Item 11) and Recent reviews are more important than older ones
(Item 14). These items indicate that consumers relied on the positive/
negative type of customer reviews to reinforce their online purchase
choice, and therefore the authors decided to term this factor as
Relevance.
3.7. Stage 2: confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
In Stage 2, the empirical results of EFA were confirmed using an
iterative process involving Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) fit
indices (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988) and chi-square testing (Voss et al.,
2003). CFA for the 17 items was conducted using the IBM SPSS AMOS
program which tests the factorial validity of the measuring instrument
6
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 68 (2022) 103066
(Gallagher et al., 2008; Kline, 2015). Empirical measures of the model
estimation were evaluated through internal consistency reliability,
convergent and discriminant validity as proposed by Hair et al. (2010) in
their book Multivariate Data Analysis. The factor loadings having values
greater than 0.5 are considered practical and acceptable for the analysis
(Hair et al., 2010). The results of CFA and reliability values are depicted
in Table 3. The Cronbach’s α(alpha) value is 0.962. The three items
loading on factor 2 (Volume) have a Cronbach’s α (alpha) value of 0.959.
The three items loading on factor 3 (Language and Comprehension) have a
Cronbach’s α (alpha) value of 0.977, and the four items loading on factor
4 (Relevance) have a Cronbach’s α value of 0.959 (additional informa­
tion is illustrated in Table 3), which were considered acceptable (α >
0.70) (Nunnally, 1978; Kline, 2011) and hence confirming the reliability
of scale dimensions.
The validity on the construct level was statistically examined by
computing discriminant validity and convergent validity (Fornell and
Larcker, 1981). Convergent validity was assessed, and the reliability at a
level greater than 0.7 was identified as significant (as depicted in
Table 4) for all items of the measurement model. Model evaluation was
also conducted through discriminant validity, where the correlation
between the factors was measured, and all the conditions were met as
per the recommendations for use by Fornell and Larcker criteria, 1981
(as depicted in Table 5). To support the Fornell and Larcker criterion for
discriminant validity, the heterotrait-monotrait ratio of correlations
(HTMT) was computed. HTMT is a measure of similarity between latent
variables (Henseler et al., 2015). If the HTMT is less than 0.9, then
discriminant validity can be regarded as established (Horstmann, 2017),
which confirms the authenticity and validity of the measurement model
(Quoquab and Mohammad, 2020) (Refer to Table 6).
The measurement model consisting of the 17 variables/items iden­
tified through the item-generation stage offers an acceptable model-fit
index as recommended by the thresholds proposed by Hair et al.
(2010) and Byrne (2010), 2013; Hu and Bentler (1999) (as depicted in
Table 7). Thus, the authors finalized and proposed the Online Customer
Review (OCR) Scale, as elucidated in Table 3.
3.8. Scale validation approach
The measurement model was validated using the same procedure
involving the CFA technique on an independent and new data set
comprising 278 respondents. The loadings of the factors for the purifi­
cation and validation phase are summarized in Table 8. The scale’s
reliability was assessed through the coefficients of Cronbach’s alpha.
The coefficients of the measurement scale were computed as 0.951 for
factor 1 (Source Credibility), 0.953 for factor 2 (Volume), 0.955 for factor
3 (Language and Comprehension), and 0.936 for factor 4 (Relevance) (as
indicated in Table 9), which met the acceptable level of being more
significant than 0.70. This established the reliability of the scale di­
mensions. The measurement scale also showed acceptable convergent
validity (see Table 9) and discriminant validity threshold values (see
Table 10). The HTMT values also supported the establishment of
discriminant validity (see Table 11). The empirical findings of CFA
confirmed the four-factor structure validation of the proposed. The
goodness of fit statistic fit provided a good fit (see Table 12). The results
of the validation structure conducted using the CFA technique indicated
that the model fit was adequate and has achieved a satisfactory model fit
with field data (Somers et al., 2003).
4. Discussion
The present study aims to propose a structured scale for online re­
views. Such a scale is necessary as online reviews have significantly
influenced product and brand sales (Li et al., 2020). With the advent of
online retailing and various shopping platforms, consumers are now
shopping online and looking for opinions of other shoppers posted on
online shopping sites, platforms, and blogs (Fernandes et al., 2021; Micu
S. Fernandes et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 68 (2022) 103066

Table 3
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).
Sl. Items/Variables Sources* Mean Standard Factor Reliability
No. score Deviation (SD) Loadings (Cronbach alpha)

Factor 1: 0.962
Source Credibility
1 I trust the information more where I believe the reviewer has Hsieh & Li (2020) 3.2895 1.00678 0.846
adequate knowledge/expertise for the product.
2 The review is more credible when the reviewer is a product user Mariani & Predvoditeleva 3.3974 1.10527 0.788
(gender/age-specific products). (2019)
3 I trust the review only if it comes from a verified customer (The Exploratory Study 3.3211 0.96212 0.964
online retailer mentions he/she is a verified customer).
4 The reviews are more credible if the name/image of the reviewer is Munzel (2016) 3.3237 1.01854 0.879
available.
5 I look for reviews at multiple sites to confirm the review scores. Goes et al. (2014) 3.2763 1.03244 0.882
6 I believe the reviews that are supported by relevant arguments are Risselada H. et al., 2018 3.2289 1.06650 0.888
important.
7 I look for reviews that describe the benefit/problem of the product. Munzel (2016) 3.3500 0.96979 0.976

Factor 2: 0.959
Volume
8 If the reviews are fewer, I hesitate to consider the reviews while Grewal et al. (2020) 3.5842 0.89606 0.907
buying the product.
9 I look for extreme views (5-star or 1-star) while evaluating a Sen & Lerman (2007) 3.5474 0.92766 0.933
product.
10 The average score/star rating is important for a product. El-Said, 2020 3.6000 0.93481 0.986

Factor 3: 0.977
Language and Comprehension
11 The review is more useful if the language of reviews is simple and Tran and Strutton, 2020 3.3263 1.09874 0.952
appealing.
12 The review is more helpful if the message is unambiguous. Stein and Ramaseshan, 3.3447 1.11104 0.969
2016
13 I believe the style of writing reviews should be unbiased or Exploratory Study 3.3500 1.11886 0.980
impartial.

Factor 4: 0.959
Relevance
14 I look for the seller’s response in lieu of the customers’ reviews. Munzel (2016) 3.4816 0.92584 0.798
15 Negative reviews influence more than positive reviews. Weisstein et al. (2017) 3.5184 0.93152 0.962
16 I believe reviews impact my decision to purchase or not to purchase Kim and Song, 2018; Hsu 3.5816 0.92241 0.958
a product. et al., 2017
17 Recent reviews are more important than older ones. Lee et al. (2017) 3.5289 0.93972 0.979

(*The items/variables have been aptly modified based on a qualitative study, which involved discussions with the industry/subject matter experts and participants of
the study).
Source: Contribution by authors.

Table 4 Table- 6
Convergent Validity Estimates (Purification phase: 1st stage data collection). HTMT computations.
Constructs Composite Reliability AVE Reliability Convergent HTMT Values
(CR) Validity

SC 0.962 0.794 ✓ ✓ V 0.169

V 0.959 0.888 ✓ ✓ LC 0.317 0.334
LC 0.977 0.935 ✓ ✓ R 0.219 0.295 0.770
R 0.959 0.860 ✓ ✓ SC V LC

Note: As per the recommended value for convergent validity, CR must be 0.70 or
higher, the Average Variance Explained (AVE) must have the cut-off value of
0.50 or higher, and the CR value must be greater than AVE (Hair et al., 2010). Table 7
CFA results: Measuring model fit (purification phase).
a
Indicators CFA Threshold Source
Table 5 Results Value
Discriminant Validity Estimates (Purification Phase: 1st stage data collection).
CMIN/df 2.181 Three or lower Hair et al. (2012); Byrne (2010)
Latent Constructs AVE SC V LC R GFI 0.934 0.90 or higher Somers et al. (2003)
SC 0.794 0.891 NFI 0.972 0.90 or higher Hair et al. (2012); Hu and Bentler
V 0.888 0.186 0.943 (1999)
LC 0.935 0.309 0.351 0.967 SRMR 0.0259 0.08 or lower Kline (2011)
R 0.860 0.205 0.303 0.765 0.927 RMSEA 0.056 0.08 or lower Brannick (2003)
CFI 0.985 0.90 or higher Hu and Bentler (1999)
Note: The values/elements across the diagonal, indicated in bold, are the √AVE, NNFI (TLI) 0.982 0.90 or higher Hu and Bentler (1999)
and the off-diagonals are the correlations between constructs. AGFI 0.910 0.80 or higher Byrne (2010, 2013)
a
The model fit indicators are within the acceptable threshold values.

7
S. Fernandes et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 68 (2022) 103066

Table 8 et al., 2019). These reviews’ exposure and subsequent influence have
A comparison of Factor Loadings in Purification and Validation Phases. also been referred to as e-WOM (Shankar et al., 2020). In the absence of
Purification phase Validation phase face-to-face interaction, customers evaluate the reviews based on their
perceived credibility (Heng et al., 2018). Literature suggests that
SC1←SC 0.846 0.828
SC2←SC 0.788 0.735 consumer-generated online reviews are gaining importance and popu­
SC3←SC 0.964 0.950 larity (Lee and Choeh, 2018) and influencing purchase decisions
SC4←SC 0.879 0.836 (Duarte, e Silva & Ferreira, 2018). Consumer endorsements on online
SC5←SC 0.882 0.872 platforms are trustworthy compared to seller-generated information
SC6←SC 0.888 0.856
SC7←SC 0.976 0.966
(Hajli, 2018). However, there are many factors relating to online re­
V1←V 0.907 0.911 views, like contributing to writing online reviews (Thakur, 2018),
V2←V 0.933 0.903 several reviews (Grewal et al., 2020), star ratings (Li et al., 2020),
V3←V 0.986 0.984 reviewer expertise (Vermeulen and Seegers, 2009), quality of reviews
LC1←LC 0.952 0.954
(Risselada et al., 2018) etc. that impact the review credibility. Hence the
LC2 ← LC 0.969 0.939
LC3 ← LC 0.980 0.914 current study establishes that customer reviews are pivotal in online
R1 ← R 0.798 0.701 purchases by studying various variables that contribute to the reliability
R2 ← R 0.962 0.946 of the reviews and proposes a scale to describe the elements of online
R3 ← R 0.958 0.939 reviews and their impact on the consumer purchase decision. The
R4 ← R 0.979 0.970
research adopted the scientific and systematic approach to developing
the scale using 17 items. These 17 items were identified through liter­
ature and refined through Focus Group Discussions and Factor Analysis.
Table 9 Based on the CFA output and subsequent validation, the study proposes
Convergent Validity Estimates (Validation Phase: 2nd stage data collection). an Online Review Scale corroborating four constructs: Source Credibility
Latent Composite AVE Reliability Convergent with seven items, Volume with three items, Language and Comprehension
Constructs Reliability (CR) Validity with three items, and Relevance with four items.
SC 0.951 0.750 ✓ ✓
V 0.953 0.871 ✓ ✓ 4.1. Source credibility
LC 0.955 0.876 ✓ ✓
R 0.936 0.802 ✓ ✓
Source Credibility refers to the trust customers attach to the review’s
writer (Hsieh and Li, 2020). Online platforms have multiple sellers of the
same product at different prices. Such platforms allow customers to
Table 10
share feedback, grievances, and appreciation of the products and ser­
Discriminant validity estimates (validation phase).
vices that customers purchase online. Online shoppers trust a review if
Latent Constructs AVE SC V LC R they believe the author of the review is an actual user of the product and
SC 0.750 0.866 if she/he has mentioned the benefits or the problems of the product
V 0.871 0.216 0.933 (Ismagilova et al., 2020). The reliability is higher if the reviewer is a user
LC 0.876 0.295 0.369 0.936
of the product rather than merely the buyer (Thakur, 2018). This sug­
R 0.802 0.222 0.348 0.733 0.896
gests that if a product is meant for women, a review by a man will seem
Note: The values indicated across the diagonals (identified in bold) are the less reliable to the prospective customers even if he is the actual pur­
√AVE, and the off-diagonals are the correlations between the constructs. chaser of the product. Customers also check the reliability of the re­
viewers, whether she/he is verified customers by the e-retailer or the
platform (Mariani and Predvoditeleva, 2019). This reduces the possi­
Table 11
bility of robots or fake customers providing reviews of the products
HTMT values (validation phase).
where they are not the actual buyers. Consumers’ reliance on online
HTMT Values
reviews is also based on the reviewer’s reputation and expertise. If the
review provides valid information and product benefits and reflects the
V 0.196 expertise or knowledge of the reviewer, then customers trust such re­
LC 0.295 0.355
views (Li et al., 2020). The construct Source credibility with seven items
R 0.240 0.346 0.737
SC V LC forms an essential part of the OCR Scale.

4.2. Volume
Table 12
CFA results: Measuring model fit (validation phase). Though unique review content is helpful, the total number of reviews
works as an anchor by providing aggregate review content (Grewal
Indicators *CFA Results Cut off Criteria
et al., 2020). Hence, in addition to reliable reviews, online shoppers also
AGFI 0.886 0.80 or higher look for the Volume (number) of reviews for a particular product on the
CMIN/df 2.096 Three or lower
NFI 0.957 0.90 or higher
site. Though the review length may or may not facilitate consumers in
GFI 0.916 0.90 or higher their decision-making journey (Li et al., 2020), the total number of re­
RMSEA 0.063 0.08 or lower views helps them evaluate the product and trust the overall score if the
NNFI (TLI) 0.972 0.90 or higher number of reviews are more. Moreover, positive or negative reviews do
SRMR .0335 0.08 or lower
influence the conversion to product sales. Positive reviews evoke active
CFI 0.977 0.93 or higher
consumer purchase decisions (Weisstein et al., 2017). Even if the review
(* All the model fit indicators are as per the acceptable threshold/cut off values). is positive or has emotional content (Guo et al., 2020), if the number of
reviews is perceived to be less, customers are averse to accepting it (Yi

8
S. Fernandes et al.
and Oh, 2022). This imposes that a few good reviews may not be suf­
ficient to influence customer decisions. If the number of reviews is more,
customers tend to associate more trust. While evaluating reviews, it may
be easy to look at the average score/rating to make an overall impression
of the product (Rauschnabel et al., 2019). However, customers are not
persuaded by the average score only, and they look for extreme positive
and negative views (Cao et al., 2011). A few extreme negative views can
dissuade a customer from buying a product with an acceptable average
rating (Li et al., 2020). Consumers consider review ratings as anchors to
minimize the risks associated with choosing the right product (Yi and
Oh, 2022). Consumers also find the number of reviews to be ‘helpful’ as
they tend to derive aggregate information from all the reviews (Grewal
et al., 2020; Yi and Oh, 2022).
4.3. Language and comprehension
In the absence of face-to-face contact with a reviewer, the language
and writing style influence the review’s trustworthiness (Stein and
Ramaseshan, 2016). The third construct identified in the OCR Scale is
Language and Comprehension. Customers rely more on the reviews where
the language is simple, appealing, and easy to understand. Customers
tend to disbelieve a review if they feel the customer is biased by the
language used in the review. Hence, customers can make out disgruntled
and unjust customers if they have used improper language and such
reviews tend to be less authentic.
Moreover, if the rating by the reviewer does not support the
description, customers tend to rely less on such reviews. Clear and un­
ambiguous reviews are perceived to be more reliable and positively
reinforce buying decisions (Lu et al., 2018). So this suggests that if the
reviewer uses simple language, uses a tone that does not reflect biases
against the product, and the message is simple to understand, customers
tend to trust such reviews.
4.4. Relevance
Online reviews may contain information about product descriptions,
service experience, grievances, complaints, or appreciations as felt by
the reviewer. However, all this information may not be pertinent to all
the customers. Hence, apart from Source Credibility, Volume of reviews,
and the Language of the reviews, what matters is the Relevance of the
review to the customer and the response of the seller/retailer to negative
reviews. So, a seller’s response to negative reviews helps customers
make an informed decision by reducing the adverse effect if the response
is acceptable. Customers rely more on recent reviews than older reviews
(Kawaf and Istanbulluoglu, 2019). Some e-retailers also display the
recent reviews at the top or give options to customers to select a time
period to access the reviews. Like negative word of mouth in the physical
place, negative online reviews dissuade a customer more than a positive
review can influence (Li et al., 2020). Hence negative reviews are more
relevant to customers than positive ones. Moreover, deceptive or fake
reviews may also lead into negative WOM and dissuade consumers from
purchasing (Munzel, 2016). This indicates that e-retailers and online
platforms must strategize their response to negative reviews and solve
customer complaints to build the trust and confidence of both existing
and prospective customers.
In summary, customers check the credibility of the source of the
reviews and look for a higher number of reviews to trust the rating/score
during the online purchase. Simultaneously, the language and relevance
of the review also influence the consumer purchase decision in
enhancing the reliability of the reviews.
5. Contributions
5.1. Theoretical contributions
The study has notable theoretical contributions. First, it is the
9
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 68 (2022) 103066
pioneering work that measures the effectiveness of online consumer
reviews. This has contributed to developing and validating an Online
Review scale with 17 items and investigated the impact of online
customer reviews on the consumer purchase decision. The scale mea­
sures the helpfulness of online reviews in consumer purchase behavior.
The study’s empirical results indicated that the developed scale has a
reliable measurement model (Hair et al., 2012).
Second, with the growing use of online platforms for purchase and
the spread of the internet, shoppers are using various forms of infor­
mation channels to make the best shopping decision. The study shows
that while making a purchase decision, consumers give importance to
online reviews, reducing their search efforts and minimizing the risk
while choosing a product or service. In this context, the study’s out­
comes contribute to developing a theoretical understanding of con­
sumers’ purchase decisions by using the scale of the online review with
few new dimensions. It focuses on the importance of four factors or di­
mensions such as source credibility, relevance, volume, and language in
analyzing consumer purchase decisions.
Third, the study provides new perspectives and directions to online
reviewers by adding new variables. The findings of the study added two
new variables to the online review scale: ‘the style of writing reviews
should be unbiased or impartial’ (for ‘the language and comprehension’
dimension) and ‘customers trust the reviews if it comes from a verified
customer’ (for “source credibility’ dimension).
Finally, this adds value to the existing or traditional consumer
decision-making literature by providing further scope to study the
interrelationship and influence among these constructs. Subsequent
studies can also explore the consequences of using these identified
constructs to manage reviews. The EFA, CFA, reliability, and validity
tests specified that the scale developed is a sound and dependable
empirical model (Byrne, 2013). The study provided a comprehensive
theoretical understanding of the usage and impacts of online customer
reviews and is a base for quantitative and experimental studies.
5.2. Managerial implications
Firms should actively weave their products, services, and brands into
this online review discourse. This study has various implications for
managers. First, the literature observes that the attributes of online
customer reviews such as review quality (richness), review ratings, the
relevance of the reviews (Nieto-Garcia et al., 2019), and the reviewers’
identity disclosures and their level of expertise (Mariani and Pre­
dvoditeleva, 2019) depict positive influence towards consumer online
purchase decision. This helps both consumers in their decision-making
and online retailers regarding product design, display, and managing
relationships. Secondly, online retailers and marketplaces can use the
‘Online Review’ scale to get more customer insights into how customers
gather information, arrive at purchase decisions, and retailers/brands
can manage online services accordingly. The scale can segment con­
sumers who are most likely to get influenced by online reviews. Thirdly,
it is observed that consumers decide their buying decisions based on
various types of online information, such as positive or negative types of
online reviews and the number of online reviews. Before making their
purchase decisions, consumers check the information about the com­
pany and ratings about the products on their respective websites (Stuppy
et al., 2020). Our result also showed that consumers look for extreme
reviews (5-star or 1-star) while evaluating a product or brand, consistent
with the findings of Sen and Lerman (2007). Hence, the proposed scale
will help retailers understand consumer tendencies toward the suscep­
tibility of online reviews, and thereby their behavior can be monitored
and evaluated to devise appropriate programs. Fourthly, consumers are
generally influenced by the primacy effect, which might influence them
if the online information is negative. This research will enable online
retailers to target the segments that value negative reviews more than
positive reviews in their purchase decision.
S. Fernandes et al.
6. Conclusion
The research investigates the dimensions that constitute online re­
views and establishes a scale for measuring the online reviews labeled as
OR Scale (ORS). The scale fills the research gap and will guide the
stakeholders in measuring online customer reviews. The measurement
model developed is a reliable and valid tool that drives online consumer
purchase decisions. The empirically derived four-factor model resulted
in Source Credibility, Volume, Language Comprehension, and Relevance
dimensions. The items of factor 1 (Source Credibility) reflect upon con­
sumer evaluations of online reviews through varied online sources
whereby users examine the source’s trustworthiness and reviewer
expertise and credentials. The Factor 2 (Volume) items reflect the effect
of online reviews, characterized by the number of reviews, ratings of the
reviews, etc. The items of factor 3 (Language and Comprehension)
reflect upon the content quality by evaluating texts of online reviews.
The items of factor 4 (Relevance) reflect upon the quality of the reviews,
such as positive and negative reviews, recent versus older reviews, or the
seller’s response to customer reviews. The research scholars, academi­
cians, and practitioners can now examine the applicability of these
factors and to what extent they differ across cultures and various de­
mographics of the consumer segments. The authors stress building trust
between customers and sellers through the scale in online marketplaces.
The identified scale items can guide customers during their purchase
journey and be helpful to the online retailers in designing their con­
sumer response strategy. Online Reviews are omnipresent and can act as
an important feature of retailers’ websites and provide customers with a
comprehensive shopping experience.
6.1. Limitation and further scope of the study
The study has used questionnaires to collect information. The au­
thors propose that future scholars conduct in-depth interviews to sup­
port or augment the research. The study adopted convenience sampling,
having samples between 18 and 45 years, so the results cannot be
generalized to consumers of varied age groups across different cultures
and geographical boundaries. It would rather be motivating for future
scholars to study online customer reviews across generalized samples by
widening the age group and geographic scope and thereby comparing
their customer purchase journey. The current research checks the effect
of OCR across consumers in a specific age group, whereas future studies
may focus their analysis only on variables like gender effects. The
influencing role of OCR across gender towards online shopping envi­
ronments and different product types can be verified.
References
Adelson, J.L., McCoach, D.B., 2010. Measuring the mathematical attitudes of elementary
students: the effects of a 4-point or 5-point Likert-type scale. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 70
(5), 796–807.
Ahani, A., Nilashi, M., Yadegaridehkordi, E., Sanzogni, L., Tarik, A.R., Knox, K.,
Samad, S., Ibrahim, O., 2019. Revealing customers’ satisfaction and preferences
through online review analysis: the case of Canary Islands hotels. J. Retailing
Consum. Serv. 51 (November), 331–343.
Anderson, J.C., Gerbing, D.W., 1988. Structural equation modeling in practice: a review
and recommended two-step approach—psychological. Bulletin 103 (3), 411.
Arul Rajan, K., 2020. Influence of hedonic and utilitarian motivation on impulse and
rational buying behavior in online shopping. J. Stat. Manag. Syst. 23 (2), 419–430.
Augusto, M., Torres, P., 2018. Effects of brand attitude and eWOM on consumers’
willingness to pay in the banking industry: mediating role of consumer-brand
identification and brand equity. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 42 (May), 1–10.
Brannick, M., 2003. Scaling procedures: issues and applications. Person. Psychol. 56 (4),
1088.
Brod, M., Tesler, L.E., Christensen, T.L., 2009. Qualitative research and content validity:
developing best practices based on science and experience. Qual. Life Res. 18 (9),
1263–1278.
Byrne, B.M., 2010. Structural equation modeling with AMOS: basic concepts,
applications, and programming (multivariate applications series). New York: NY
Taylor & Francis Group 396 (1), 7384.
Byrne, B.M., 2013. Structural Equation Modeling with Mplus: Basic Concepts,
Applications, and Programming. Routledge, New York, NY. https://doi.org/
10.4324/9780203807644.
10
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 68 (2022) 103066
Cao, Q., Duan, W., Gan, Q., 2011. Exploring determinants of voting for the “helpfulness”
of online user reviews: a text mining approach. Decis. Support Syst. 50 (2), 511–521.
Changchit, C., Klaus, T., Lonkani, R., 2022. Online reviews: what drives consumers to use
them. J. Comput. Inf. Syst. 62 (2), 227–236.
Chen, Z.F., Hong, C., Li, C., 2017. The joint effect of association-based corporate posting
strategy and eWOM comment valence on social media. Internet Res. 27 (5),
1039–1057.
Choi, H.S., Maasberg, M., 2021. An empirical analysis of experienced reviewers in online
communities: what, how, and why to review. Electron. Mark. 1–18. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s12525-021-00499-8.
Churchill Jr., G.A., 1979. A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing
constructs. J. Market. Res. 16 (1), 64–73.
Davis, A., Khazanchi, D., 2008. An empirical study of online word of mouth as a predictor
for multi-product category e-commerce sales. Electron. Mark. 18 (2), 130–141.
Dixit, S., Badgaiyan, A.J., Khare, A., 2019. An integrated model for predicting
consumers’ intention to write online reviews. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 46,
112–120.
Duarte, P., Silva, S.C., Ferreira, M.B., 2018. How convenient is it? Delivering online
shopping convenience to enhance customer satisfaction and encourage e-WOM.
J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 44 (September), 161–169.
El-Adly, M.I., 2019. Modelling the relationship between hotel perceived value, customer
satisfaction, and customer loyalty. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 50, 322–332.
El-Said, O.A., 2020. Impact of online reviews on hotel booking intention: The moderating
role of brand image, star category, and price. Tourism Manag. Perspect. 33, 100604.
Fernandes, S., Venkatesh, V.G., Panda, R., Shi, Y., 2021. Measurement of factors
influencing online shopper buying decisions: a scale development and validation.
J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 59, 102394.
Filieri, R., Acikgoz, F., Ndou, V., Dwivedi, Y., 2020. Is TripAdvisor still relevant? The
influence of review credibility, review usefulness, and ease of use on consumers’
continuance intention. Int. J. Contemp. Hospit. Manag. 33 (1), 199–223.
Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Structural equation models with unobservable variables
and measurement error: algebra and statistics. J. Market. Res. 18 (3), 382–388.
Fu, H., Manogaran, G., Wu, K., Cao, M., Jiang, S., Yang, A., 2020. Intelligent decision-
making of online shopping behavior based on internet of things. Int. J. Inf. Manag.
50 (February), 515–525.
Fu, S., Cheng, X., Bao, Y., Bilgihan, A., Okumus, F., 2021. Staying in a hotel or peer-to-
peer accommodation sharing? A discrete choice experiment with online reviews and
discount strategies. Internet Res. 31 (2), 654–676.
Gallagher, D., Ting, L., Palmer, A., 2008. A journey into the unknown; taking the fear out
of structural equation modeling with AMOS for the first-time user. Market. Rev. 8
(3), 255–275.
Goes, P.B., Lin, M., Au Yeung, C.M., 2014. Popularity effect” in user-generated content:
evidence from online product reviews. Inf. Syst. Res. 25 (2), 222–238.
Gottschalk, S.A., Mafael, A., 2017. Cutting through the online review
jungle—investigating selective eWOM processing. J. Interact. Market. 37 (February),
89–104.
Grewal, D., Hulland, J., Kopalle, P.K., Karahanna, E., 2020. The future of technology and
marketing: a multidisciplinary perspective. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 48 (1), 1–8.
Guo, J., Wang, X., Wu, Y., 2020. Positive emotion bias: role of emotional content from
online customer reviews in purchase decisions. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 52
(January), 101891.
Hair, J.F., Ortinau, D.J., Harrison, D.E., 2010. Essentials of marketing research, 2.
McGraw-Hill/Irwin, New York, NY.
Hair, J.F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M., Mena, J.A., 2012. An assessment of the use of
partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. J. Acad.
Market. Sci. 40 (3), 414–433.
Hajli, N., 2018. Ethical environment in the online communities by information
credibility: a social media perspective. J. Bus. Ethics 149 (4), 799–810.
Hajli, N., 2018. Ethical environment in the online communities by information
credibility: a social media perspective. J. Bus. Ethics 149 (4), 799–810.
Hardesty, D.M., Bearden, W.O., 2004. The use of expert judges in scale development:
implications for improving face validity of measures of unobservable constructs.
J. Bus. Res. 57 (2), 98–107.
Heng, Y., Gao, Z., Jiang, Y., Chen, X., 2018. Exploring hidden factors behind online food
shopping from Amazon reviews: a topic mining approach. J. Retailing Consum. Serv.
42 (May), 161–168.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M., 2015. A new criterion for assessing discriminant
validity in variance-based structural equation modelling. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 43
(1), 115–135.
Herhausen, D., Binder, J., Schoegel, M., Herrmann, A., 2015. Integrating bricks with
clicks: retailer-level and channel-level outcomes of online–offline channel
integration. J. Retailing 91 (2), 309–325.
Horstmann, F., 2017. Measuring the shopper’s attitude toward the point of sale display:
scale development and validation. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 36, 112–123.
Hsieh, J.K., Li, Y.J., 2020. Will you ever trust the review website again? The importance
of source credibility. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 24 (2), 255–275.
Hsu, C.L., Yu, L.C., Chang, K.C., 2017. Exploring the effects of online customer reviews,
regulatory focus, and product type on purchase intention: perceived justice as a
moderator. Comput. Hum. Behav. 69, 335–346.
Hu, L.T., Bentler, P.M., 1999. Cut-off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model.: A
Multidiscip. J. 6 (1), 1–55.
Huang, J., Guo, Y., Wang, C., Yan, L., 2019. You touched it and I’m relieved! the effect of
online review’s tactile cues on consumer’s purchase intention. J. Contemp. Market.
Sci. 2 (2), 155–175.
S. Fernandes et al.
Iacobucci, D., 2010. Structural equations modeling: fit indices, sample size, and
advanced topics. J. Consum. Psychol. 20 (1), 90–98.
IAMAI-Kantar, 2021. Indian Market Research Bureau. Retrieved 6 March 2019, from. htt
ps://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ians/india-to-have-627-mn-intern
et-users-in-2021-report-119030600518_1.html.
Ismagilova, E., Slade, E., Rana, N.P., Dwivedi, Y.K., 2020. The effect of characteristics of
source credibility on consumer behaviour: a meta-analysis. J. Retailing Consum.
Serv. 53 (March), 101736.
Jin, L., 2007. The effects of online WOM information on consumer purchase decision: an
experimental study. Econ. Manag. 29 (22), 36–42.
Joshi, H., Binoy, A., Safna, F., David, M., 2021. Factors influencing online shopping
behaviour: an empirical study of Bangalore. In: Data Science and Security. Springer,
Singapore, pp. 285–294.
Kawaf, F., Istanbulluoglu, D., 2019. Online fashion shopping paradox: the role of
customer reviews and facebook marketing. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 48 (May),
144–153.
Kim, S., 2020. Year in review and appreciation for 2020 reviewers. Kor. J. Women Health
Nurs. 26 (4), 251–254.
Kim, J.M., Kim, M., Key, S., 2020. When profile photos matter: the roles of reviewer
profile photos in the online review generation and consumption processes. J. Res.
Indian Med. 14 (4), 391–412.
Kim, M., Song, D., 2018. When brand-related UGC induces effectiveness on social media:
the role of content sponsorship and content type. Int. J. Advert. 37 (1), 105–124.
Kline, R.B., 2011. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (3. Baskı).
Guilford, New York, NY.
Kline, R.B., 2015. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. Guilford, New
York, NY.
Kyriazos, T.A., 2018. Applied psychometrics: sample size and sample power
considerations in factor analysis (EFA, CFA) and SEM in general. Psychology 9,
2207, 08.
Lee, S., Choeh, J.Y., 2018. The interactive impact of online word-of-mouth and review
helpfulness on box office revenue. Manag. Decis. 56 (4), 849–866.
Lee, S.K., Lindsey, N.J., Kim, K.S., 2017. The effects of news consumption via social
media and news information overload on perceptions of journalistic norms and
practices. Comput. Hum. Behav. 75 (October), 254–263.
Leung, D., Law, R., van Hoof, H., Buhalis, D., 2013. Social media in tourism and
hospitality: A literature review. J. Travel Tour. Market. 30 (1–2), 3–22. https://doi.
org/10.1080/10548408.2013.750919.
Li, K., Chen, Y., Zhang, L., 2020. Exploring the influence of online reviews and
motivating factors on sales: a meta-analytic study and the moderating role of product
category. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 55 (July), 102107.
Lissitsa, S., Kol, O., 2016. Generation X vs. Generation Y–A decade of online shopping.
J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 31 (July), 304–312.
Lu, S., Wu, J., Tseng, S.L.A., 2018. How online reviews become helpful: a dynamic
perspective. J. Interact. Market. 44 (November), 17–28.
MacDonald, M., 2018. Why online store owners should embrace online reviews.
Available at: www.shopify.com/blog/15359677-why-online-store-owners-should-
embrace-online-reviews.
Mariani, M., Predvoditeleva, M., 2019. How do online reviewers’ cultural traits and
perceived experience influence hotel online ratings? An empirical analysis of the
Muscovite hotel sector. Int. J. Contemp. Hospit. Manag. 31 (12), 4543–4573.
Micu, A.E., Bouzaabia, O., Bouzaabia, R., Micu, A., Capatina, A., 2019. Online customer
experience in e-retailing: implications for web entrepreneurship. Int. Enterpren.
Manag. J. 15 (2), 651–675.
Morrison, K., 2015. Report: User Reviews Have a Powerful Impact Online and Offline, Ad
Week. July 16, available at: www.adweek.com/socialtimes/report-user-reviews-ha
ve-a-powerful-impact-onlineand-offline/623537.
Munzel, A., 2016. Assisting consumers in detecting fake reviews: the role of identity
information disclosure and consensus. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 32 (September),
96–108.
News Daily, Business, 2021. Responding to Online Reviews Can Help Your Business.
Retrieved on 22nd Jan 2022, Accessed from. https://www.businessnewsdaily.
com/9187-respond-to-online-reviews.html.
Nieto-Garcia, M., Resce, G., Ishizaka, A., Occhiocupo, N., Viglia, G., 2019. The
dimensions of hotel customer ratings that boost RevPAR. Int. J. Hospit. Manag. 77
(January), 583–592.
Nunnally, J.C., 1978. Psychometric Theory 2, nd edition. McGrawHill, New York: NY.
Quoquab, F., Mohammad, J., 2020. Cognitive, affective and conative domains of
sustainable consumption: scale development and validation using confirmatory
composite analysis. Sustainability 12 (18), 7784.
Racherla, P., Connolly, D.J., Christodoulidou, N., 2013. What determines consumers’
ratings of service providers? An exploratory study of online traveler reviews.
J. Hospit. Market. Manag. 22 (2), 135–161.
11
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 68 (2022) 103066
Rauschnabel, P.A., Felix, R., Hinsch, C., 2019. Augmented reality marketing: how mobile
AR-apps can improve brands through inspiration. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 49
(July), 43–53.
Risselada, H., de Vries, L., Verstappen, M., 2018. The impact of social influence on the
perceived helpfulness of online consumer reviews. Eur. J. Market. 52 (3/4),
619–636.
Saha, M., Sahney, S., 2022. Exploring the relationships between socialization agents,
social media communication, online shopping experience, and pre-purchase search:
a moderated model. Internet Res. 32 (2), 536–567.
Schneider, P.J., Zielke, S., 2020. Searching offline and buying online–An analysis of
showrooming forms and segments. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 52 (January), 101919.
Schuckert, M., Liu, X., Law, R., 2015. Hospitality and tourism online reviews: recent
trends and future directions. J. Trav. Tourism Market. 32 (5), 608–621.
Sebastianelli, R., Tamimi, N., 2018. E-tailer website attributes and trust: understanding
the role of online reviews. Online Inf. Rev. 42 (4), 506–519.
Sen, S., Lerman, D., 2007. Why are you telling me this? An examination into negative
consumer reviews on the web. J. Interact. Market. 21 (4), 76–94.
Shaheen, M., Zeba, F., Chatterjee, N., Krishnankutty, R., 2019. Engaging customers
through credible and useful reviews: the role of online trust. Young Consum. 21 (2),
137–153.
Shankar, A., Jebarajakirthy, C., Ashaduzzaman, M., 2020. How do electronic word of
mouth practices contribute to mobile banking adoption? J. Retailing Consum. Serv.
52 (January), 101920.
Shareef, M.A., Mukerji, B., Dwivedi, Y.K., Rana, N.P., Islam, R., 2019. Social media
marketing: comparative effect of advertisement sources. J. Retailing Consum. Serv.
46 (January), 58–69.
Shin, D., Darpy, D., 2020. Rating, review and reputation: how to unlock the hidden value
of luxury consumers from digital commerce? J. Bus. Ind. Market. 35 (10),
1553–1561.
Siddiqi, U.I., Sun, J., Akhtar, N., 2020. Ulterior motives in peer and expert
supplementary online reviews and consumers’ perceived deception. Asia Pac. J.
Market. Logist. 33 (1), 73–98.
Singh, V., Chaudhuri, R., Verma, S., 2018. Psychological antecedents of apparel-buying
intention for young Indian online shoppers: scale development and validation.
J. Model. Manag. 14 (2), 286–311.
Somers, T.M., Nelson, K., Karimi, J., 2003. Confirmatory factor analysis of the end-user
computing satisfaction instrument: replication within an ERP domain. Decis. Sci. J.
34 (3), 595–621.
Spake, D.F., Beatty, S.E., Brockman, B.K., Crutchfield, T.N., 2003. Consumer comfort in
service relationships: measurement and importance. J. Serv. Res. 5 (4), 316–332.
Srivastava, V., Kalro, A.D., 2019. Enhancing the helpfulness of online consumer reviews:
the role of latent (content) factors. J. Interact. Market. 48 (November), 33–50.
Stein, A., Ramaseshan, B., 2016. Towards the identification of customer experience touch
point elements. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 30 (May), 8–19.
Stuppy, A., Mead, N.L., Van Osselaer, S.M., 2020. I am, therefore I buy: low self-esteem
and the pursuit of self-verifying consumption. J. Consum. Res. 46 (5), 956–973.
Tan, K.W., Swee, D., Lim, C., Detenber, B.H., Alsagoff, L., 2008. The impact of language
variety and expertise on perceptions of online political discussion. J. Computer-
Mediated Commun. 13 (1), 76–99.
Thakur, R., 2018. Customer engagement and online reviews. J. Retailing Consum. Serv.
41 (March), 48–59.
The Wall Street Journal, 2020. How consumers really use online reviews. Available at:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-consumers-really-use-online-reviews-11
603570504.
Tran, G.A., Strutton, D., 2020. Comparing email and SNS users: investigating e-
servicescape, customer reviews, trust, loyalty and E-WOM. J. Retailing Consum.
Serv. 53 (March), 101782.
Vermeulen, I.E., Seegers, D., 2009. Tried and tested: the impact of online hotel reviews
on consumer consideration. Tourism Manag. 30 (1), 123–127.
Voss, K.E., Spangenberg, E.R., Grohmann, B., 2003. Measuring the hedonic and
utilitarian dimensions of consumer attitude. J. Market. Res. 40 (3), 310–320.
Weisstein, F.L., Song, L., Andersen, P., Zhu, Y., 2017. Examining impacts of negative
reviews and purchase goals on consumer purchase decision. J. Retailing Consum.
Serv. 39 (November), 201–207.
Wieland, A., Durach, C.F., Kembro, J., Treiblmaier, H., 2017. Statistical and judgmental
criteria for scale purification. Supply Chain Manag.: Int. J. 22 (4), 321–328.
Yi, J., Oh, Y.K., 2022. The informational value of multi-attribute online consumer
reviews: a text mining approach. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 65 (March), 102519.
Zhao, X.(R.)., Wang, L., Guo, X., Law, R., 2015. The influence of online reviews to online
hotel booking intentions. Int. J. Contemp. Hospit. Manag. 27 (6), 1343–1364.
Zhao, Y., Xu, X., Wang, M., 2019. Predicting overall customer satisfaction: big data
evidence from hotel online textual reviews. Int. J. Hospit. Manag. 76 (January),
111–121.