Journal of Business Research 168 (2023) 114239

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

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

Brand wagon effect: How brand equity eclipses the effect of eWoM on
purchase intentions – Mediating role of review helpfulness
Yogesh Upadhyay a, *, Aditya Tripathi b
a
School of Studies in Management, Jiwaji University, Gwalior, M.P, India
b
ITM School of Business, ITM University, Gwalior, M.P, India

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

Keywords: As a result of digitalization, consumers have more agency than in earlier times. Consumers now have the ability
Review valence (RV) to express their consumption experiences through diverse online platforms by means of rating or providing
Review helpfulness written feedback. The ability to effectively decipher online customer reviews (OCRs) holds significant impor­
Brand equity
tance for businesses due to its far-reaching consequences. This research aimed to determine if review valence
eWoM
Signaling theory
(RV) (the degree to which reviews are extremely positive or negative) was transmitted to purchase intentions via
Cue-diagnostic theory review helpfulness within the framework of signaling theory and cue-diagnosticity theory. The research also
examined the presence of negative bias among customers when evaluating the valence of online customer re­
views (OCRs) and its signaling of review helpfulness. Further, to determine if such an effect occurs within the
boundaries of brand equity, an experimental study was conducted sequentially on two products: mobile phones
and laptop computers. The study did not find negative bias among consumers concerning the assessment of RV.
Further, the study supports an indirect effect of RV on purchase intention through review helpfulness. In
addition, the results demonstrate that the referred effect is fully mediated by review helpfulness. Moreover, the
results indicate that such an indirect effect is contingent on the brand’s equity. The findings indicate that the RV
has a significant effect on purchase intentions, particularly when brand equity is low. The study also discusses the
study’s managerial and research implications.

1. Introduction a positive outcome.

The widespread adoption of the internet, the proliferation of e-
commerce platforms, and the emergence of diverse online review fo­
rums have led to a notable transition of word-of-mouth communication
to the digital realm. This change has enabled customers as well as other
stakeholders to post their reviews concerning the product and services
consumption experience 24X7. The absence of a standard pattern and its
disproportionate implications have piqued the interest of researchers
and businesses in online consumer reviews (OCRs) and their implica­
tions (Albayrak & Ceylan, 2021; Babić Rosario et al., 2016; Floyd et al.,
2014; Hong et al., 2017; Hu & Yang, 2021; Ismagilova et al., 2021;
Ismagilova et al., 2020a; Ismagilova et al., 2020b; Li et al., 2020; Moradi
& Zihagh, 2022; Purnawirawan et al., 2015; Verma, Dewani, et al.,
2023; Verma, Prakash Dewani, et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2019; Yang
et al., 2018; You et al., 2015). Moreover, their extended reach to a
disproportionately larger population at a lightning-fast pace continues
to sustain the stakeholders’ interest. Nonetheless, it presents a challenge
for marketers, who must engage in concrete follow-up actions to ensure
The valence of online customer reviews (OCRs) has garnered the
attention of researchers. The valence of OCRs or review valence
(henceforth RV) is an evaluative positive or negative tone (Purnawir­
awan et al., 2012) about a consumption experience which serves as an
important signaling cue for both customers and marketers. It has been
widely studied and has been found to have significant ramifications for
customer response (e.g., Floyd et al., 2014; Kakaria et al., 2023; Mas­
lowska et al., 2017; Purnawirawan et al., 2015). RV helps consumers in
shaping their expectations (Mauri & Minazzi, 2013), choices (Fu et al.,
2021; Shah et al., 2019), product attitude (Karabas et al., 2021), pur­
chase intention (He et al., 2022; Kakaria et al., 2023; Maslowska et al.,
2017) among other factors. Valence laden reviews are perceived as more
helpful than neutral reviews (Park & Nicolau, 2015; Purnawirawan
et al., 2012). Therefore, it is argued that the valence of an OCR signals
the helpfulness of the review to prospective consumers in their purchase
decisions (Jiang and Benbasat, 2007). OCRs due to their helpfulness
potential have also been tagged as a public good (Avery et al., 1999). A
slew of research has been conducted that explores the link between RV

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: yogeshupadhyay@jiwaji.edu (Y. Upadhyay), aditya.tripathi@itmuniversity.ac.in (A. Tripathi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.114239
Received 28 December 2022; Received in revised form 16 August 2023; Accepted 21 August 2023
Available online 6 September 2023
0148-2963/© 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Y. Upadhyay and A. Tripathi
and review helpfulness (RH) (Hong et al., 2017; Hu & Yang, 2021).
Although the outcome of such an effort has been mixed. The meta-
analysis by Purnawirawan et al. (2015) and Hu and Yang (2021), in
general, disconfirmed the effect of RV on review helpfulness. On the
contrary, other studies found a positive effect of RV on review helpful­
ness (Huang et al., 2015; Mudambi & Schuff, 2010; Park & Nicolau,
2015). For example, Park and Nicolau (2015) reported a U-shaped link
between RV and review helpfulness in which extreme positive and
negative reviews were shown to be positively related to review help­
fulness. Purnawirawan et al. (2015), in their meta-analysis, found that
the effect of RV on review helpfulness was insignificant, although a
closer examination revealed that this effect was significant specifically
in the case of negative reviews. In contrast, Liu and Park (2015)
discovered a significant relationship between positive reviews and re­
view usefulness.
Further, studies indicate a positive effect of RV on the purchase in­
tentions (PI) of consumers (Cheong et al., 2020; Kakaria et al., 2023;
Karabas et al., 2021). Though a stream of research contests this osten­
sibly straightforward linear relationship between the valence of OCRs
and consumer purchase intent. This relationship is argued to be medi­
ated, for instance, by perceived sincerity and willingness to forgive (Ma
& Wang, 2021), anticipated regret for buying or not buying (He et al.,
2022), review credibility (Han & Kim, 2021; Shukla & Mishra, 2022),
and participants’ perceptions of the e-retailer’s manipulative intent
(Karabas et al., 2021). Only a select few studies (e.g., Xia & Bechwati,
2008) have looked into the role of review helpfulness in the relationship
between RV and consumers’ purchase intentions.
Importantly, consumers operate in a multiple-cue environment
(Akdeniz et al., 2013). The significance of a company’s brand equity (BE)
as one of the most valuable assets is widely acknowledged. Therefore,
comprehending how it would perform in a scenario where RV and review
helpfulness play a role in shaping consumer PI would offer a more prac­
tical outlook on the functioning of OCRs. However, only a limited number
of studies (Chiou et al., 2013; Kostyra et al., 2016; Langan et al., 2017)
have explored the role of BE within this proposed framework. These
studies, such as Chiou et al. (2013), Kostyra et al. (2016), and Langan et al.
(2017), included BE in their research, but in a peripheral manner. For
example, Chiou et al. (2013) argued in their study that brand attachment
reduces the effect of negative OCRs on both, brand evaluation and
perceived brand risk. In a multi-cue context, Langan et al. (2017) posited
that the effect of source credibility on purchase decisions is only effective
when BE is low. East et al. (2008) found that individuals exhibit reduced
receptivity towards negative word-of-mouth (WoM) pertaining to brands
that they intend to procure. In contrast, Kostyra et al. (2016) argued that
OCRs diminish the importance of brands to consumers. Despite these
contributions, the specific interaction between RV, review helpfulness,
and BE in influencing consumers’ purchase decisions remains unclear.
The present study proposes to employ two theoretical frameworks,
namely cue-diagnostic theory (Feldman & Lynch, 1988; Lynch et al.,
1988) and signaling theory (Spence, 1973), to elucidate the contested
relationship among the proposed variables. Against the backdrop of these
theories, we propose that review helpfulness will mediate the effect of the
valence of OCRs on purchase intentions. Further, we contend that con­
sumers shall not solely rely on the RV and its helpfulness to inform their
purchasing decisions but shall consider the cue regarding a product’s BE.
The presence or absence of BE is expected to condition the proposed in­
direct association between RV and PI. Therefore, we propose to examine
BE as a boundary condition for the proposed mediated relationship.
To that end, we propose the following study objectives:
(a) to examine the effect of RV on review helpfulness;
(b) to examine the mediation by review helpfulness of the relation­
ship between RV and consumer purchase intentions, and
(c) to investigate whether information about BE will moderate the
aforementioned mediated relationship.
2
Journal of Business Research 168 (2023) 114239
To the best of our knowledge, no study has empirically investigated
the effect of moderated mediation by review helpfulness and BE on the
relationship between RV and purchase intentions.
2. Literature review
Simon (1955) noted limitations in the information processing ca­
pacity of humans and subsequently raised reservations regarding their
capacity to make rational decisions. As a result, Simon (1990, p. 11)
argued that in the face of bounded rationality, individuals tend to employ
several shortcuts for decision making like “problem solving by recog­
nition, by heuristic search, and by pattern recognition and extrapola­
tion”, to adapt to the environment at large. Over time, various theories
have been proposed in an attempt to provide a foundation for alternative
strategies to decision-making in the face of bounded rationality. Several
of these strategies have not only lowered the amount of relative effort
required but have also demonstrated a high level of accuracy (Johnson
& Payne, 1985). This paper employs two such theories, namely signaling
theory and cue-diagnosticity theory, to elucidate how the in­
terrelationships among the variables under investigation can be expli­
cated through the application of these theories.
2.1. Signaling theory
Economic models that assumed complete information have resulted
in market inefficiencies, such as the 2007 financial crisis, or suboptimal
outcomes (Stiglitz 2002). In fact, various market participants have
varying levels of information. This information asymmetry leads to
market inefficiency (Akerlof 1970). Spence (1973) proposed signaling
theory to explain how people strive to mitigate the negative implications
of information asymmetry. According to the theory, an entity uses
multiple signals to actively transmit information, in an attempt to
overcome information asymmetry.
The application of signaling theory to investigate different aspects of
customer behavior has received substantial attention in the marketing
literature (Connelly et al., 2011). To address information asymmetry, the
theory assumes that consumers utilize different signals to comprehend
information about the object to be assessed (Connelly et al., 2011; Erdem
& Swait, 1998; Spence, 1973). This simplifies their decision-making
process in the face of intricate choices (Payne et al., 1993) and reduces
cognitive load (Erdem & Swait, 1998; Kirmani & Rao, 2000). These sig­
nals also aid in the reduction of the search costs and uncertainty that
consumers encounter during the decision-making process (Shugan, 1980;
West & Broniarczyk, 1998). For example, the stronger brand equity of an
organization may signal to customers a superior product quality. In the
online environment, consumers generally encounter high levels of infor­
mation overload due to the unprecedented ubiquity of the internet and the
unlimited shelf life of products (Jones et al., 2004). This increases the
level of ambiguity and perceived risk vis-à-vis the offline environment (C.-
Y. Li, 2017). As a result, consumers rely on signals more in an online
marketing environment given its challenges.
Customers’ online customer reviews (OCRs) play a significant role in
signaling valuable information to potential buyers, helping them avoid
what economists call ’adverse selection’ (Akerlof, 1970). It is crucial to
note that OCRs are diverse and do not follow a uniform pattern. They can
vary in terms of reviewer valence (RV), usefulness, length (Korfiatis et al.,
2012; Qazi et al., 2016; Schindler & Bickart, 2012), depth (Liang et al.,
2019), title features (Akbarabadi & Hosseini, 2020), popularity cues
(Filieri et al., 2018), information quality (Filieri, 2015), and other attri­
butes, which can act as signals to customers. In this study, we specifically
focus on three essential OCR signals: their valence, their perceived help­
fulness, and the brand equity associated with the product under review.
We posit that employing signaling theory will provide valuable in­
sights into the underlying mechanisms that connect various signals, such
as the valence of reviews, perceived helpfulness of reviews, and pur­
chase intentions. Additionally, it will help us understand how a signal
Y. Upadhyay and A. Tripathi
associated with branding information acts as a boundary condition,
influencing the relationship between these variables. By applying
signaling theory, we aim to uncover the intricate dynamics that govern
the interactions among these signals and their impact on consumers’
decision-making processes.
2.2. Cue-Diagnosticity theory (CDT)
The cue-diagnosticity theory builds on cue utilization theory that
suggests that most of the important judgments and choices of consumers
are based on a series of cues that represent product attributes that may
vary in their predictive or diagnostic value (Slovic & Lichtenstein,
1971). These cues can be intrinsic or extrinsic in nature (Olson, 1972;
Olson & Jacoby, 1972). Intrinsic cues are components of the physical
properties of a product or service like the built-in memory of a mobile
phone. Whereas extrinsic cues are proxies of these physical properties
which are used to indirectly communicate about intrinsic cues like brand
name, OCRs, etc. When intrinsic cues are difficult to assess or unavai­
lable, consumers rely on extrinsic cues to make product-related judg­
ments (Miyazaki et al., 2005).
According to the cue-diagnosticity theory, assessing a cue is a catego­
rization process in which consumers employ available cues to allocate a
product to a certain category (Feldman & Lynch, 1988; Skowronski &
Carlston, 1987, 1989). Cues that indicate a particular categorization over
other possible categorizations are deemed as diagnostic, while cues that
are equivocal in their categorization towards multiple categories are
regarded as nondiagnostic (Bettman et al., 1998; Herr et al., 1991).
Diagnosticity pertains to the perceived dependability of a cue in dis­
tinguishing between different categorizations or interpretations (Purohit &
Srivastava, 2001). Diagnosticity of cues thus helps consumers to evaluate a
product on matching parameters and use that information in decision-
making (Jiang & Benbasat, 2004). The present paper employs cue-
diagnosticity theory as it is anticipated to assist consumers in discerning
cues, specifically those pertaining to positive versus negative valence, high
versus low helpfulness, and branding versus non-branding context.
2.3. RV and purchase intention
Consumer perception plays a pivotal role in anticipating how con­
sumers will react to different stimuli. In traditional offline settings, the
tone of word-of-mouth (WoM) communication significantly influences
consumers’ attitudes and behaviors (Howard & Gengler, 2001; Pugh,
2001). However, in the realm of online customer reviews (OCRs), the
absence of observable cues, such as facial expressions or pitch of voice,
makes it challenging to gauge these responses. Consequently, re­
searchers have focused on investigating various attributes of OCRs to
understand their impact on consumer behavior. One particular area of
interest is the valence of OCRs and its influence, which has garnered
significant attention in research (Purnawirawan et al., 2015). Duan et al.
(2008) argued that consumers pay more attention to the content of re­
views rather than just the overall rating. Within the framework of
signaling theory, we propose that the absence of direct communication
in online contexts makes the valence of OCRs act as a signal in influ­
encing consumer responses. Connelly et al. (2011, p. 64) argued that
“Individual may also serve as their own insiders when signaling about
themselves”. Prospective consumers rely on these signals to reduce un­
certainties when considering new product purchases (Yang et al., 2018),
bridging the information asymmetry between existing and potential
customers. Additionally, the valence in OCRs has the potential to makes
them more diagnostic, aligning with cue-diagnostic theory (Herr et al.,
1991), and providing valuable information that shapes consumers’ at­
titudes and behaviors.
Numerous studies have supported a positive association between RV
and purchase intentions (Cheong et al., 2020; Kakaria et al., 2023;
Karabas et al., 2021; Ketelaar et al., 2015; Maslowska et al., 2017; Mauri
& Minazzi, 2013; Xia & Bechwati, 2008). Both Purnawirawan et al.
3
Journal of Business Research 168 (2023) 114239
(2015) and Ismagilova et al. (2020b) found a significant effect of RV on
consumers’ purchase intentions in their meta-analysis. Such an effect is
ambivalent across different cultures (Purnawirawan et al., 2015).
Hence, we propose that:
H1: Review valence (RV) of OCRs will be perceived as a signal for
online purchase intentions.
2.4. Mediating role of review helpfulness
Both intrinsic and extrinsic cues can function as indicators of the
helpfulness of reviews. Among these cues, the valence of online
customer reviews (OCRs), considered an extrinsic cue, significantly in­
fluences consumer decision-making processes. For instance, it helps in
the reduction of information load (Cao et al., 2011), eases decision-
making (Cao et al., 2011), increase fit (Chevalier & Mayzlin, 2006),
develop product attitude (Purnawirawan et al., 2015), signal product
quality (Chaiken & Maheswaran, 1994) and improve sales (Forman
et al., 2008; Liu et al., 2022; Topaloglu & Dass, 2021; Zhu & Zhang,
2010). Thus, it is expected that the valence of online reviews serves as a
single of their helpfulness to consumers.
Both signaling theory and cue-diagnostic theory offer theoretical
support to association between OCR valence and review helpfulness.
Drawing on Spence’s (1973) signaling theory, we posit that online con­
sumer reviews (OCRs) can serve as signals for consumers regarding their
helpfulness, determined by their valence. Moreover, cue-diagnostic the­
ory posits that consumers simplify their decision-making by using heu­
ristics, categorizing cues based on their diagnosticity (Feldman & Lynch,
1988; Forman et al., 2008). Hence, it is plausible to argue that the valence
of OCRs could potentially be integrated into heuristics by consumers to
classify them according to their degree of helpfulness.
The studies have also supported RV as a reasonable predictor of re­
view helpfulness (Cao et al., 2011; Fang et al., 2016; Filieri et al., 2019;
Krishnamoorthy, 2015; Li et al., 2022; Liang et al., 2019; Pan & Zhang,
2011; Park & Nicolau, 2015; Schindler & Bickart, 2012). Though con­
cerning the relationship between RV and review helpfulness, however,
there are contrasting findings in meta-analyses by Purnawirawan et al.
(2015) and Hu and Yang (2021). Where the meta-analysis by Purna­
wirawan et al. (2015) supports a positive association between RV and
review helpfulness, Hu and Yang’s (2021) study argues against any such
association. There are majorly three lines of research that have emerged
in respect of the association between RV and review helpfulness.
The first group of studies have highlighted the existence of negative
bias (Filieri et al., 2021; Herr et al., 1991) among consumers (Chen &
Farn, 2020; Chua & Banerjee, 2015; Chua & Banerjee, 2016; Wang et al.,
2015; Yin et al., 2014; Zhang et al., 2010). Consequently, consumers
tend to show a greater inclination towards paying more attention to
negative reviews compared to positive ones. The cue-diagnosticity the­
ory explains this bias by suggesting that consumers perceive negative
information as more informative, less confusing, and diagnostically
valuable than positive or neutral information (Birnbaum, 1972; Feld­
man & Lynch, 1988; Herr et al., 1991; Hinkle, 1976; Skowronski &
Carlston, 1989; Wang et al., 2015; Wyer, 1974). Moreover, the theory
posits that negative information is more suitable for classification
(Skowronski & Carlston, 1987, 1989) due to its higher diagnosticity.
Several studies have supported negative reviews to be more helpful (e.g.,
Chen & Farn, 2020; Chevalier & Mayzlin, 2006; Chiou et al., 2013;
Verma, Dewani, et al., 2023; Wu, 2013). For example, in their study,
Chua and Banerjee (2015) used Amazon data to conclude that review
helpfulness is inversely associated with review ratings. Similarly, Yin
et al. (2014) examined seller reviews on Yahoo! Shopping websites and
found a negative association between emotional review content and
helpfulness ratings. Zhang et al. (2010) revealed that customers evalu­
ating products for consumption prevention goals find negative ratings
more persuasive than positive ones. In a recent study, Chen and Farn
(2020) argued that negative emotions conveyed in OCRs relatively
Y. Upadhyay and A. Tripathi
convey more helpfulness to consumers. Additionally, they were found to
have better diagnostic value. Similarly, Banerjee (2022) also found
negative reviews were perceived as more authentic by consumers
compared to their positive counterparts. Moreover, positive reviews that
cover negative aspects of products are considered more credible
(Kietzmann & Canhoto, 2013; Purnawirawan et al., 2015).
The second line of studies argues that positive reviews are more
helpful than their neutral or negative counterparts (Krishnamoorthy,
2015; Pan & Zhang, 2011; Schindler & Bickart, 2012). Finally, the third
strand of research posits that positive and negative reviews are equally
effective in terms of their perceived helpfulness (Cao et al., 2011; Liang
et al., 2019; Park & Nicolau, 2015). Fang et al. (2016) found a U-shaped
relationship between RV (measured as extreme opinions) and review
helpfulness. Extremely positive or negative reviews were deemed as
most helpful by the study.
Given the extensive support of negative bias in the research domain,
we propose that:
H2: Negative valence of OCRs will be perceived as more helpful.
At the same time, several studies have also demonstrated a positive
association between review helpfulness and consumer behavioral out­
comes. Filieri et al. (2018) showed that there is a positive association
between the helpfulness of reviews and consumers’ intent to buy.
Thomas et al. (2019) also found a positive link between review help­
fulness and purchase intentions. Likewise, the results of Ghosh’s (2018)
research demonstrated that the perception of review helpfulness has an
impact on customers’ perceptions of the review itself, influencing their
attitudes toward the brand, and ultimately affecting their likelihood to
book a hotel. Hsu et al. (2013) showed that the perceived helpfulness
and trustworthiness of bloggers’ recommendations had a significant
impact on blog users’ attitudes about and desire to shop online.
Therefore, we propose:
H3: Review helpfulness will be positively associated with purchase
intentions.
Several studies have examined the mediating factors that influence the
impact of online consumer reviews (OCRs) on consumers’ purchase in­
tentions (Filieri et al., 2018; Ketelaar et al., 2015; Purnawirawan et al.,
2015; Tata et al., 2020). For example, Filieri et al. (2018) demonstrated
that review helpfulness partially mediates the relationship between two-
sided reviews, popularity signals, source homophily, source expertise,
and purchase intent. Tata et al. (2020) in their study demonstrated that
the effect of RV on purchase intention is mediated by consumers’ attitudes
toward purchase. There is a limited body of research that has investigated
the role of review helpfulness in mediating the association between RV
and consumer purchase intentions. (e.g., Xia & Bechwati, 2008).
Thus, to gain a deeper understanding of this overlooked domain, we
propose:
H4: Review helpfulness will mediate the relationship between RV
and the purchase intentions of consumers.
2.5. Moderating role of BE
Studies suggest that at the aggregate level or firm level, BE acts as a
moderator in the relationship between review attributes and financial
outcomes (Ho-Dac et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2021; Wang & Kim, 2021).
Specifically, at the firm level, the impact of OCRs becomes more pro­
nounced when BE is low (Ho-Dac et al., 2013). For instance, Wang et al.
(2021) demonstrated that the volume and ratings of OCRs have a more
significant effect on the financial performance of restaurants with low BE.
Moreover, research at the consumer level has also explored various
moderating factors influencing the relationship between online reviews
and consumers’ purchase decisions. For example, researchers have
4
Journal of Business Research 168 (2023) 114239
observed that consumers take into account both intrinsic cues, such as
the brand (Cambier & Poncin, 2020), and extrinsic cues, such as the
sentiment of online customer reviews (Agnihotri & Bhattacharya, 2016;
Filieri et al., 2019; Langan et al., 2017), when making their buying
choices.. These studies align with signaling theory, which suggests that
brands serve as important indicators of unobservable product charac­
teristics, such as quality. Companies use these signals to reduce infor­
mation asymmetry with consumers, aiming to enhance the efficiency of
the exchange process (Akerlof, 1970). Marketing-mix research (e.g.,
Boulding & Kirmani, 1993; Cambier & Poncin, 2020; Volckner, 2008)
further supports this idea, highlighting that signals from sellers, such as
pricing, advertising, brand transparency, and warranties, not only
reduce perceived risk but also positively influence buyers’ perceptions
of brand integrity and behavioral intentions by mitigating information
asymmetry. BE has been recognized as an important, accessible, and
relevant signal in customer decision-making (Aaker, 1991; Keller,
1993). According to Ho-Dac et al. (2013), when individuals lack direct
experience with a product in an online setting, the brand functions as a
crucial indicator of both product quality and the reputation of the
company. Moreover, in accordance with cue-diagnostic theory, it is our
contention that consumers possess the ability to classify products based
on their brand equity, distinguishing those with higher brand equity
from their lower counterparts. Hence, it is posited that the inclusion of
brand equity information in a context may act as a boundary condition
in the proposed relationship of RV, review helpfulness, and PI.
A limited number of studies have examined the effect of a branding
cue on the relationship between OCRs and customer purchasing de­
cisions (e.g., Berger et al., 2010; Chiou et al., 2013; Langan et al., 2017;
Purohit & Srivastava, 2001; Vermeulen & Seegers, 2009). These studies
reveal that when a brand is weak, online customer reviews play a crucial
role in compensating for the limited impact of branding. In such cases,
consumers rely more on brand equity rather than OCRs. Conversely,
when brands lack strong recognition, online customer reviews become
significant in conveying product quality information. Consequently, this
aids in reducing uncertainty during the consumer’s purchasing decision-
making process.
For example, Chiou et al. (2013) discovered that a consumer’s
attachment to a brand lessened the impact of negative online content on
their negative evaluation of the brand. On the other hand, according to
Berger et al. (2010), when consumers are not familiar with a brand,
there is a positive correlation between negative online customer reviews
and sales. In a different study, Langan et al. (2017) revealed that only
when brand equity (BE) is low, do additional signals like reviewer
credibility influence purchase intentions. Vermeulen and Seegers (2009)
found that in situations where brand awareness is low, both negative
and positive online customer reviews contribute to hotel recognition. In
a meta-analysis, Purnawirawan et al. (2015) showed that the relation­
ship between reviewer valence and perceived review helpfulness was
moderated by brand familiarity and the type of goods (experience versus
search). However, Kostyra et al. (2016) presented a counterargument in
their work, suggesting that online customer reviews have a negative
effect on brand equity in consumers’ purchasing decisions.
It’s worth noting that, except for Langan et al. (2017), none of the
mentioned studies explicitly incorporated the concept of brand equity in
their exploration of the influence of online customer reviews on pur­
chasing decisions. Additionally, the moderating effect of brand equity on
the indirect relationship between review helpfulness and purchase
intention via review helpfulness has not been thoroughly investigated
and remains an unexplored area.
Therefore, we propose:
H5: The indirect effect of RV on purchase intentions through review
helpfulness will be stronger when BE is low as compared to when it is
high.
The proposed model is given at Fig. 1.
Y. Upadhyay and A. Tripathi Journal of Business Research 168 (2023) 114239

Fig. 1. Proposed Model.

3. Study 1 positive adjectives with negative ones.

Further, per Langan et al. (2017) methodology, we manipulated BE
In this study, we examined whether the BE of a product moderates in the current study to be either high or low. The respective stimuli were
the indirect effect of RV on purchase intention as mediated by review represented by two actual mobile phone brands. The objective was to
helpfulness. increase the realism of the scenarios presented to the participants. As
described in Appendix 2, respondents were asked to rank the BE of eight
mobile phone brands: Oppo, Vivo, Samsung, RedMi, Realme, Oneplus,
3.1. Methodology
Nokia, LG, and Lava. According to the rankings provided by re­
spondents, Samsung was ranked first and Lava was ranked last.
3.1.1. Pretest - for stimulus development
One hundred and twenty participants, i.e., n = 120, in the business
We chose the experimental stimulus product based on four criteria
school, who were all students between the ages of 20 and 30, agreed to
(Bambauer-Sachse & Mangold, 2011; Mizerski, 1982; Xue & Zhou,
be part of the study. The percentage of male and female students was 64
2010). Firstly, the product is relevant to them; second, it is often
% and 36 %, respectively. Students were randomly assigned to one of the
reviewed in OCRs; third, participants are interested in acquiring more
four conditions. After surveys with missing data and outliers were taken
information regarding it (Chiou et al., 2013); and last, it is a high-
out, the sample size was reduced to 112. The study was conducted in the
involvement product (Petty et al., 1983). High-involvement products,
classroom. The participants were informed that they would be partici­
according to studies, are more likely to undergo OCRs (Ha, 2002). In the
pating in a study on consumer perceptions of a new mobile phone.
case of high-involvement products, consumers are expected to invest
Participants were told to imagine using the e-commerce site to look up
more of their time in reading and writing OCRs (Bambauer-Sachse &
information about mobile phones before making a purchase. The par­
Mangold, 2011). We took mobile phones as our product category, using
ticipants were given a booklet containing a copy of a webpage that
the above criteria. By administering a pre-test (Appendix 1), we aimed to
corresponded to one of four randomly assigned scenarios. The printed
ensure that participants were familiar with the product and eager to
version of the website resembled a page from an e-commerce website.
learn more about it.
Right after the scenarios were read, the participants filled out ques­
The pretest was conducted with 30 students. The pre-test revealed
tionnaires about their demographics, review helpfulness, and purchase
that all participants had mobile phones (Appendix 1). Also, the people
intentions, and checked for manipulation.
who took part wanted to know about how other people used their mobile
To assess perceived review helpfulness, participants rated the review
phones (Mean = 6.1; Appendix 1). Consequently, the pre-test results
on an adapted version of a two-item helpfulness scale (Lopez & Garza,
validated the selection of mobile phones as product categories for the
2021; Wu, 2013) with (α = 0.90, composite reliability [CR] = 0.95, and
current study.
average variance extracted [AVE] = 0.95). The three-item scale of
purchase intentions (α = 0.90, composite reliability [CR] = 0.94, and
3.1.2. Design, participants, and procedure
average variance extracted [AVE] = 0.84) was taken from (Bian &
To test the proposed hypotheses, a 2 (RV: positive or negative) × 2
Forsythe, 2012), which included items like “I consider buying this mo­
(BE: low or high) between-subjects factorial design was used. We looked
bile.“ Additionally, demographic information was collected, and
at the reviews of mobile phones that were posted on Amazon India to
manipulation check questions regarding RV and BE were also asked. The
determine how they were written, and which device attributes were
literature on the idea of consumer-based brand equity suggests two main
most frequently mentioned. This aided us in making OCR appear more
paradigms. One is producer based and the other is consumer-based,
authentic and engaging to the participants. Amazon India (htt
namely consumer-based brand equity (CBBE).
ps://www.amazon.in/) was chosen since it is leading online shopping
We operationalized BE as customer-based brand equity (CBBE), a
platform in India having a market share of around 27 % (www.ETRetail.
concept promulgated by Keller (1993). To assess the effectiveness of the
com, 2023). Moreover, it’s critical to know that Amazon puts the most
BE manipulation, a five-item scale measuring customer-based BE (α =
often mentioned product features at the top of the review section. This
0.93, composite reliability [CR] = 0.95, and average variance extracted
makes it easier for consumers to find reviews that are relevant to them.
[AVE] = 0.91) adapted from (Rust et al., 2001) was used. Similarly, to
Considering the attributes listed at the top of the review section and
assess the efficacy of RV manipulation, we used Simmons and Becker-
reading the reviews, we discovered that the majority of them discussed
Olsen, (2006) scale with two items (α = 0.94, composite reliability
battery life and camera quality. Therefore, both of these product attri­
[CR] = 0.97, and average variance extracted [AVE] = 0.94).
butes were included in the OCRs that were used in the scenarios (Ap­
Additionally, they were also quizzed regarding the realism of the
pendix 3, Figure 4, 5, 6 and 7).
scenarios and their knowledge about the purpose of the research. Re­
Following Chen and Lurie (2013), we manipulated the valence of the
spondents were asked about the objective of the study since if they could
target review by inserting positive/negative words for the selected at­
predict the purpose, they would become biased, thus confounding the
tributes into the review’s text. We created stimuli by first composing a
results (Lee et al., 2009). No participant could guess the precise purpose
positive review and then constructing a negative review by substituting

5
Y. Upadhyay and A. Tripathi
Table 1
Cronbach Alpha, CR and AVE of scales.
Items
Purchase Intentions − 7-point
Likert Scale (1 — Strongly
Disagree, 7 — Strongly Agree)
I am considering buying this mobile.
The likelihood that I will purchase
this mobile is high.
My willingness to buy this mobile is
high.
Review Helpfulness- 7-point Likert
scale from 1 (Not at all helpful) to
7 (Extremely/very helpful)
How helpful the review was
How useful the review was
Brand Equity − 7-point Likert scale
from 1 (Not at all) to 7 (Extremely/
very)
How loyal are you to this brand of
mobile?
What kind of attitude do you have
about this brand of mobile?
What kind of image does this brand
have?
How would you rate the quality
delivered by this brand of mobile?
Would you be willing to pay more for
this brand of mobile than you
would for another brand of
mobile?
Review ValenceThe reviewer’s
rating of the mobile was
(1 = very negative, 7 = very
positive)
The reviewer’s rating about the
mobile was (1 = unfavorable and
7 = favorable)
Realism Check − 7-point Likert
Scale (1 — Strongly Disagree, 7 —
Strongly Agree)
The scenario described was realistic.
I had no difficulty imagining myself
in this situation.
Note: α = Cronbach Alpha; CR = Composite reliability; AVE = Average variance
extracted.
Fig. 2. Moderating Effect of Brand Equity (Experiment 1).
Journal of Business Research 168 (2023) 114239
of the research. The question to determine whether the respondents
were aware of the study’s purpose was taken from (Lee et al., 2009).
Source α CR AVE We used two items from Dabholkar (1994) to examine the partici­
pants’ perceptions of realism (α = 0.91, composite reliability [CR] =
(Bian & Forsythe, 0.90 0.94 0.84
2012) 0.93, and average variance extracted [AVE] = 0.90) (Table 1). The
statements “The scenario described is realistic“ and “I had no difficulty
imagining myself in this situation” were asked on a scale of 1 to 7. The
realism scores were high, and there was no significant difference be­
tween the four scenarios. All conditions had a mean of more than 5 on a
scale of 1 to 7. The questionnaire is shown in Table 1.
(Lopez & Garza, 0.90 0.95 0.95 We controlled for the gender (Teso et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2010),
2021; Wu, 2013) review duration (Qazi et al., 2016), and age of the consumer (Huang
et al., 2020). The gender of the reviewer was controlled by using a
male’s name for all the reviews. In an Indian context, the gender is
(Rust, Zeithaml, 0.93 0.95 0.91 readily discernible by name. For controlling the length of all reviews, we
and Lemon, 2000) made the number of words and the number of statements identical in
each treatment condition (Pan & Zhang, 2011; Schindler & Bickart,
2012). We controlled for age by ensuring that all respondents were
between the ages of 20 and 21.
3.2. Results
3.2.1. Manipulation checks
For the RV manipulation to be successful, participants in the positive
valence condition should have perceived the reviews as more positive
than those in the negative valence condition. The t-test indicated that
(Simmons & 0.94 0.97 0.94
the RV manipulation was successful (Mean low Val = 2.32 versus Mean
Becker-Olsen, high Val = 5.19; t(110) = 8.94, p < 0.05). Additionally, the t-test
2006) revealed that the manipulation of BE was also successful (Mean low
brand eq = 2.77 versus Mean high brand eq = 5.53; t(110) = 11.1, p <
0.05). The participants were able to distinguish between reviews with
high and low BE.
(Dabholkar, 1994) 0.91 0.93 0.90
3.2.2. Test of hypotheses
Supporting H1, the study found a positive and significant main effect
of RV on purchase intentions (Mean_negative = 4.00 vs. Mean_positive
= 4.83; F(1, 110) = 5.80, p <.05). On the other hand H2 was not sup­
ported (Mean_neg = 4.00 vs. Mean_pos = 4.91; F(1, 110) = 5.51, p
<.05). Hypothesis H3 is supported as there was a significant positive
effect of review helpfulness on PI (ß = 0.83, SE = 0.05, t(110) = 15.8, p
=.00). A mediation analysis (Model 4, Hayes, 2012) was done to
determine if review helpfulness mediates the relationship between RV
and purchase intentions. In this analysis, RV (0 = negative, 1 = positive)
served as the independent variable, purchase intentions were the
dependent variable, and review helpfulness served as the mediator. The
results showed that review helpfulness fully mediated the indicated
relationship (95 % CIs: 0.11 to 1.20), hence supporting hypothesis H4.
The direct effect of RV on PI was no longer significant after adding re­
view helpfulness to the equation (ß = 0.16, SE = 0.20, t(110) = 0.81, p
=.42).
We also ran a moderated mediation analysis to evaluate whether BE
influences the indirect effect of RV on purchase intent via review help­
fulness. In this model, RV served as an independent variable (0 =
negative, 1 = positive), and purchase intentions were the dependent
variable (Model 7, Hayes, 2012). Further, BE (0 = low, 1 = high) acted
as a moderator, and review helpfulness served as a mediator. The results
suggested that the indirect effect of review valance on purchase in­
tentions via review helpfulness was moderated by BE (ß = − 1.93, SE =
0.61, t(110) = − 3.16, p <.05), supporting hypothesis H5. Conditional
indirect effects reveal that the RV had a significant effect on PI (95 % CIs:
0.64 to 2.03) when BE was low. However, under conditions of high BE,
this effect was insignificant (95 % CI: –0.55 to 0.42).
Furthermore, for reviews with high BE perceptions, the valence of
OCRs did not significantly affect review helpfulness (ß = –0.11, SE =
0.45, t(110) = –0.24, p =.81). For low BE perceptions reviews, however,
the positive valence increased review helpfulness (ß = 1.82, SE = 0.41, t
6
Y. Upadhyay and A. Tripathi
Fig. 3. Moderating Effect of Brand Equity (Experiment 2).
(110) = 4.47, p <.05), which in turn positively affected purchase in­
tentions (ß = 0.90, SE = 0.04, t(110) = 16.9, p <.001). Moreover, as
demonstrated in Fig. 2, the results suggested that in the low BE condi­
tion, positive reviews were regarded as more helpful than negative re­
views (Mean _neg low equity = 2.567 vs. Mean _pos low equity = 4.391;
F(1, 108) = 19.99, p <.01). However, in high BE conditions, the dif­
ference was very small and insignificant (Mean _neg high equity = 5.712
vs. Mean _pos high equity = 5.604; F < 1).
We used bootstrapping to generate a 95 % confidence interval (CI)
within which effective mediation and moderated mediation are pre­
dicted to occur if the CI interval thus generated does not contain zero
(Preacher et al., 2007; Zhao et al., 2010).
4. Study 2
Study 2 was performed with a different product category, i.e., a
laptop, to confirm the external validity of Study 1. Laptops and mobile
devices differ in several significant ways, and replicating our findings on
laptops would help to generalize them (Roberts & Rees, 2014).
4.1. Methodology
In this study, we used laptops as the product category. The product
was chosen using the same criteria that were used in Study 1. Partici­
pants showed a strong desire to learn what other consumers thought of
laptops during the pretest (Mean = 5.12). This product category has
previously been used in the WOM literature (Herr et al., 1991; Huang
et al., 2014; Laczniak et al., 2001; Lee et al., 2009; Luan et al., 2016).
4.1.1. Design, participants, and procedure
The proposed hypotheses were tested using a 2 (RV: positive or
negative) × 2 (brand equity: low or high) between-subjects factorial
design, which is similar to what was done in the last study. We recruited
students who had not previously participated in the study. Also, we
changed all instances of “mobile phones” to “laptops” to make the sce­
narios fit the current study. Like in Study 1, we also looked at reviews of
laptops that were posted on Amazon India. CPU performance and bat­
tery life emerged as the most important attributes of laptops that mat­
tered to consumers, therefore, we included them in the scenarios. Like
Study 1, the manipulation of RV was done according to Chen and Lurie
(2013).
We repeated the process described by Langan et al. (2017) to
7
Journal of Business Research 168 (2023) 114239
manipulate brand equity (high vs. low) in the review scenarios that were
to be shared with the participants. As in Study 1, to increase the realism,
the stimuli were represented by two actual laptop brands. Participants
were asked to rank the brand equity of eleven laptop brands (Dell,
Compaq, Lenovo, HCL, Acer, HP, Microsoft, Asus, Mi, Avita and LG),
which were chosen based on their popularity in the Indian market. Since
Dell was ranked top and Avita was ranked last in this group, we chose
the Dell and Avita brands to represent, respectively, strong and weak
brand equity.
After that, one hundred and ten volunteers, or n = 110, between the
ages of 20 and 30 from the university’s business programme were
invited to participate in the study. The percentage of male and female
students was 56 % and 44 %, respectively. The students were randomly
assigned to one of four conditions. The final sample size was 105 after
eliminating outliers and surveys with missing data. Study 2 was also
conducted in a classroom setting. Immediately after reading the sce­
narios, participants were given questionnaires. The scales were identical
to those used in Study 1. As shown in the Table 1, all values of α, AVE
and CR were above the threshold values (Hair et al., 2014; Nunnally,
1978), indicating that the reliability of the scales was high. The scores on
the Dabholkar (1994) scale indicated high realism across all four sce­
narios, with no statistically significant differences. On a scale from 1 to
7, the average realism score for all scenarios was greater. Moreover, no
participant was able to guess the exact purpose of the study.
As in the previous study, we controlled for the gender of the
reviewer, review duration, and age of the consumer.
4.2. Results
4.2.1. Manipulation checks and its results
For the manipulation of RV to be successful, participants in the high-
valence condition should have viewed the reviews as more positive than
those in the low-valence condition. The manipulation of RV was suc­
cessful, as indicated by the t-test (Mean low val = 2.18 vs. Mean high val
= 5.51; t(103) = 13.8, p < 0.05). Furthermore, the manipulation of
brand equity was also supported by the t-test (Mean low eq = 2.32 versus
Mean high eq = 4.30; t(103) = 7.3, p < 0.05).
4.2.2. Test of hypotheses
Supporting H1, the study found a significant and positive main effect
of RV on purchase intentions (Mean_negative = 3.80 vs. Mean_positive
= 4.63; F(1, 103) = 3.62, p <.05). The outcome suggests a higher effect
of positive OCRs vis-à-vis negative OCR. On the other hand, H2 was
supported (Mean_neg = 3.71 vs. Mean_pos = 4.83; F(1, 103) = 9.91, p
<.05). review helpfulness had a significant positive effect on PI (ß =
0.84, SE = 0.05, t(103) = 16.2, p =.00), supporting Hypothesis H3. A
mediation analysis (Model 4, Hayes, 2012) was conducted to find out if
the link between RV and purchase intentions is mediated by review
helpfulness. RV (0 = negative, 1 = positive), purchase intention, and
review helpfulness served as independent, dependent, and mediating
variables, respectively.
The results confirmed full mediation, as was the case in Study 1, by
review helpfulness between the referred variables (95 % CIs: 0.37 to
1.6), hence supporting hypothesis H4. After inducting review helpful­
ness into the equation, the direct effect of RV on PI was no longer sig­
nificant (ß = − 0.27, SE = 0.21, t(103) = − 1.28, p =.21).
We also ran a moderated mediation analysis to see if BE influences
the indirect effect of RV on purchase intention through review helpful­
ness. The results suggest that the indirect effect of RV on PI was
moderated by brand equity (ß = − 2.03, SE = 0.59, t(103) = − 3.46, p
<.05) (Model 7, Hayes, 2012), supporting hypotheses H5. When looking
at the conditional indirect effect, it was observed that when BE is high,
the indirect effect of RV has an insignificant effect on PI (95 % CIs: − 0.54
to 0.61). This effect, however, was statistically significant for low BE (95
% CI, 0.98 % to 2.6 %).
Furthermore, for reviews with high BE perceptions, RV did not
Y. Upadhyay and A. Tripathi
significantly affect review helpfulness (ß =0.03, SE = 0.40, t(103) =
0.08, p =.93). Whereas in low brand equity perceptions scenarios, the
positive valence increased review helpfulness (ß = 2.07, SE = 0.41, t
(103) = 4.98, p <.05), which in turn positively affected purchase in­
tentions (ß =0.54, SE = 0.12, t(103) = 4.8, p <.001). Similar to Study 1,
the results suggest that in the low brand equity condition, positive re­
views were regarded as more helpful than negative reviews (Mean _neg
low equity = 2.29 vs. Mean _pos low equity = 4.36; F (1, 101) = 9.93, p
<.01). However, in high brand equity conditions, the difference was
very small and insignificant (Mean _neg high equity = 5.250 vs. Mean
_pos high equity = 5.283; F < 1).
We used bootstrapping to generate a 95 % confidence interval (CI)
(Preacher et al., 2007; Zhao et al., 2010). As demonstrated in Fig. 3
below, it is evident that the indirect effect of RV via review helpfulness is
significant at low brand equity.
4.2.3. Discussion
Study 2 replicates Study 1 using laptops to assess the external val­
idity of Study 1′s results. The results of Study 2 confirm that the rela­
tionship between RV and purchase intent is mediated by review
helpfulness. In addition, the study reveals that brand equity moderates
the indirect effect of RV on purchase intent. The indirect effect of RV on
purchase intent only persists when brand equity is low. When brand
equity is high, this effect disappears.
5. Theoretical implications
The present experimental study examined how the valence of online
consumer reviews influences the purchase intentions of online customer.
The study also investigated the role of review helpfulness as a partial
mediator in this relationship. Furthermore, considering the importance
of brand equity in shaping consumer decisions, the research explored
whether brand equity moderates the aforementioned partial mediated
relationship. The study was grounded in signaling theory and cue-
diagnostic theories. Two popular products were chosen for the investi­
gation: mobiles were initially examined, and then the experiment was
replicated with laptops to validate the findings.
Results from both experiments in the study support the positive
direct effect of RV on PI (H1). The outcome suggests that negative re­
views deter consumers from making a purchase, whereas favorable
perception of the valence of OCRs further their purchase intention. The
findings are consistent with earlier studies that found a similar effect
(Cheong et al., 2020; Sen & Lerman, 2007; Sim et al., 2021; Tata et al.,
2020; Utz et al., 2012; Vermeulen & Seegers, 2009). Although the
findings are contrary to a few earlier studies that found that there is no
significant effect of RV on PI (Cheung et al., 2009; Duan et al., 2008; Liu,
2006).
Although the findings of both experiments do not support our hy­
pothesis that RV will have a negative relationship with review helpful­
ness (H2). The preposition was based on the negative bias (Birnbaum,
1972; Herr et al., 1991; Hinkle, 1976; Skowronski & Carlston, 1989;
Wang et al., 2015; Wyer, 1974) that has been validated in many studies
(Chua & Banerjee, 2015; Wang et al., 2015; Yin et al., 2014; Zhang et al.,
2010). The findings of the study negate negativity bias among con­
sumers and are consistent with the findings of studies that showed a
relatively greater influence of positive valence (Krishnamoorthy 2015;
Pan & Zhang 2011; Schindler & Bickart 2012). Furthermore, the result
also finds support from the meta-analytic study by Hu and Yang, (2021),
which found a significant effect of RV on review helpfulness only when
review helpfulness was measured via consumers’ perceptions. The
outcome of the study also supported the positive effect of review help­
fulness on the purchase intentions of consumers (H3). The finding is
consistent with other studies that support the positive association of
review helpfulness with PI (Filieri et al., 2018; Ghosh, 2018; Hsu et al.,
2013; Mariani & Borghi, 2020; Thomas et al., 2019).
The study provides a fresh understanding of the convergence of RV
8
Journal of Business Research 168 (2023) 114239
and purchase intentions. The study shows that the effect of RV on pur­
chase intentions is fully mediated by review helpfulness (H4). This result
complements the findings of Xia and Bechwati (2008) who found that
cognitive personalization i.e., self-referral thinking after reading an
OCR, affects purchase intentions via perceived helpfulness. This study
contributes to the existing body of research that posits the influence of
the valence of online consumer reviews (OCRs) on purchase intentions is
contingent upon various mediating factors such as perceived sincerity
and willingness to forgive (Ma & Wang, 2021), anticipated regret for
purchasing or not purchasing (He et al., 2022), review credibility (Han
& Kim, 2021; Shukla & Mishra, 2022), and participants’ perceptions of
the e-retailer’s manipulative intent (Karabas et al., 2021).
The study demonstrates the boundary conditions for the aforemen­
tioned indirect effect. This study adds a boundary condition to Xia and
Bechwati’s (2008) study, which suggested that the effect of OCRs on the
purchase intentions of consumers is mediated by review helpfulness.
This study further advances our understanding of this mediated rela­
tionship. The current study argues that all the levels of RV are not slated
to result in positive review helpfulness perceptions per se and thus PI.
Extant research does not explain the conditions under which the indirect
effect of RV via review helpfulness will lead to more PI. The study builds
on previous research suggesting that BE moderates the effect of valance
of OCRs on consumer purchase decisions (e.g., Langan et al., 2017) and
concludes that when BE is low, RV exerts a greater influence on review
helpfulness, resulting in a higher PI. In contrast, when BE is high, con­
sumers will not rely solely on OCRs to determine whether or not to
purchase the reviewed brand, thus supporting (H5). The study’s findings
provide new insight by validating a boundary condition for when RV
results in higher review helpfulness and PI. In today’s online world, new
insights into the effect of interaction between the BE level and RV on
attaining PI via review helpfulness are critical. Our findings also align
with those of firm-level studies (Ho-Dac et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2021;
Wang & Kim, 2021). These studies revealed that when BE is low, there is
a significant association between review attributes and the financial
consequences for businesses.
The present study has made various theoretical contributions to the
marketing literature. First, this study employed a novel approach by
integrating the frameworks of signaling theory and cue-diagnostic the­
ory to examine the effect of RV on purchase intentions in the context of
review helpfulness and brand equity. Second, the study joins a limited
set of studies that have investigated the mediating effect of review
helpfulness on the relationship between RV and PI (e.g., Xia & Bechwati,
2008). This outcome helps to understand the mechanism by which RV
influences the purchase intentions of consumers.
Thirdly, the study sought to clarify the existence of negative bias
among consumers and its impact on their perception of the helpfulness
of OCRs. This study joins the group of research that did not discover
evidence of negative bias and found that positive OCRs were perceived
as being more helpful. Fourth, the extant research does not explain the
conditions under which the indirect effect of RV via review helpfulness
will result in an increase in PI. The study contributes to the existing
literature by suggesting the indirect effect of RV on PI via review help­
fulness is incumbent on the level of BE. In particular, the study dem­
onstrates that the proposed indirect relationship only holds when the BE
of a product is low. This has been an unattended area. The findings of the
study offer a novel perspective by validating a boundary condition for
when RV results in PI through review helpfulness. In this online age, new
insights about the relevance of BE level in relating RV and review
helpfulness in attaining PI are critical.
6. Managerial implications
The findings have practical consequences for online retailers that
wish to harness OCRs to strengthen the purchase intentions of
consumers.
First, the study draws business organizations’ attention to the fact
Y. Upadhyay and A. Tripathi Journal of Business Research 168 (2023) 114239

that not all OCRs are identical. They may differ according to their
contents. The study reveals that extreme content posted on OCRS may
work both ways. They may be beneficial or detrimental to a company,
depending on their orientation. As a result, business organizations must
be aware of them and devise a strategy to mitigate or enhance their
impact, depending on their direction.
Second, the study’s findings indicate that, in general, high PI can be
secured indirectly with higher valence OCRs because such OCRs are
regarded as more helpful. As a result, while positive valence OCRs tend
to strengthen purchase intention, negative valence OCRs tend to
decrease it. In light of the current study’s findings, firms must design
measures to mitigate the negative impact of OCRs. Firms, for instance,
must always pay close attention to negative OCRs and respond positively
to them, as they can affect customer behavior (Bhandari et al., 2021;
Bhandari & Rodgers, 2018; Zinko et al., 2021). Such problems should be
addressed as early as possible. Prospective customers’ perceptions of the
firms’ negative valence may change if they see how quickly they
respond.
Finally, the study emphasizes the value of BE to businesses. OCRs
posted by customers are instantly accessible to existing and prospective
customers worldwide in today’s online environment. According to the
study’s findings, firms with higher BE products are more resilient to
adverse OCRs. This provides a significant incentive for businesses to
prioritize product BE. Additionally, companies with a lower BE should
monitor OCRs, as negative OCRs will hurt them by making consumers
less likely to buy from them. Furthermore, the study suggests that pos­
itive OCRs have a greater impact on PI, implying that firms must identify
what factors contribute to positive OCRs and work to improve those
factors. Further, OCRs should be considered a viable marketing
communication channel alongside others.
7. Limitations and future directions
The findings of the study are only useful if the context in which they
were conducted is understood. The study only tested one high-
involvement product, so the results may differ for other product types.
Further, the study lacks the insight of a longitudinal analysis, which may
have revealed the effect of time on customer behavior.
The present study can be further extended in interesting ways to fully
capitalize on its value. To begin, the study is experimental in nature
because the stimulus reviews are designed to collect data from re­
spondents. The study can be expanded by collecting data from real re­
views available on e-commerce websites using web scrollers in
qualitative studies, and the current study’s findings can be cross-
validated. Second, prior brand attitude, review age, the presence of
pictures in the review, review verification status, and other possible
confounders are not considered in this study. Any future research may
account for them and limit their confounding effect if they exist. Thirdly,
the relative impact of negative OCRs on other online outlets like social
media, blogs, etc. may be compared and contrasted. Fourth, the rela­
tionship between RV and review helpfulness can be reexamined in light
of moderators such as service type and year data (Hu & Yang, 2021).
8. Conclusion
The current study sought to investigate the interactive effect of OCRs
and BE on consumer purchasing intentions. The study was quasi-
experimental in nature, with real-world scenarios used to gauge con­
sumer reaction. The study hypothesized that review helpfulness medi­
ates the interactive effect of OCRs, or the use of excessively positive and
negative terms in online reviews, on purchase intentions. Furthermore,
the study hypothesized that the mediated effect is only effective when
BE is low. The study’s findings support the proposed hypothesis. In
general, the current study provides businesses with an online interface,
where customers have a greater capacity to communicate their thoughts
and experiences.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Yogesh Upadhyay: Supervision, Methodology, Conceptualization,
Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing. Aditya Tripathi: Project
administration, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Re­
sources, Writing – original draft.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.

Appendix 1: Product category development

Dear Students, please respond to the following questions/statements:

1. Do you own a mobile phone?

A) Yes B) No.
2. I am interested in seeking other consumers’ opinions while purchasing a new mobile.
1. Strongly Disagree (SD) 2. Disagree (D) 3. Somewhat Disagree (SD) 4. Neutral 5. Somewhat Agree (SA) 6. Agree (A) 7. Strongly Agree (SA).

Appendix 2. Mobile brand equity stimulus development

Dear Students, please rank the following cell phone brands in accordance with your preferences, assigning them a numerical ranking from 1 to 7:
Oppo, Vivo, Samsung, RedMi, Realme, Oneplus, Nokia, LG, Lava

Appendix 3. Scenarios used

Introduction
Dear students, you are invited to participate in a in a study focusing on evaluation of online consumer reviews pertaining to a new mobile phone.
Consider a hypothetical scenario where you are in need of acquiring a new mobile phone and embark on a quest for relevant information pertaining to
this device on the e-commerce platform, Amazon. You navigate to the referred platform and engage with online reviews pertaining to that particular
brand of mobile devices. The below are the screenshots of the reviews found on the website.

9
Y. Upadhyay and A. Tripathi Journal of Business Research 168 (2023) 114239

Fig. 4. Scenario (Mobile)-1.

Fig. 5. Scenario (Mobile)-2.

10
Y. Upadhyay and A. Tripathi Journal of Business Research 168 (2023) 114239

Fig. 6. Scenario (Mobile)-3.

Fig. 7. Scenario (Mobile)-4.

References Akerlof, G. A. (1970). The market for “lemons”: Quality uncertainty and the market
mechanism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84(3), 488–500.
Albayrak, M., & Ceylan, C. (2021). Effect of eWom on purchase intention: Meta-analysis.
Aaker, D. A. (1991). Managing brand equity. Simon and Schuster.
Data Technologies and Applications, 55(5), 810–840. https://doi.org/10.1108/DTA-
Agnihotri, A., & Bhattacharya, S. (2016). Online review helpfulness: Role of qualitative
03-2020-0068
factors. Psychology & Marketing, 33(11), 1006–1017. https://doi.org/10.1002/
Avery, C., Resnick, P., & Zeckhauser, R. (1999). The Market for Evaluations. The
mar.20934
American Economic Review, 89(3), 564–584. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.89.3.564
Akbarabadi, M., & Hosseini, M. (2020). Predicting the helpfulness of online customer
Babić Rosario, A., Sotgiu, F., de Valck, K., & Bijmolt, T. H. (2016). The effect of electronic
reviews: The role of title features. International Journal of Market Research, 62(3),
word of mouth on sales: A meta-analytic review of platform, product, and metric
272–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470785318819979
factors. Journal of Marketing Research, 53(3), 297–318. https://doi.org/10.1509/
Akdeniz, B., Calantone, R. J., & Voorhees, C. M. (2013). Effectiveness of marketing cues
jmr.14.0380
on consumer perceptions of quality: The moderating roles of brand reputation and
Bambauer-Sachse, S., & Mangold, S. (2011). Brand equity dilution through negative
third-party information. Psychology & Marketing, 30(1), 76–89. https://doi.org/
online word-of-mouth communication. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 18
10.1002/mar.20590
(1), 38–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2010.09.003

11
Y. Upadhyay and A. Tripathi
Banerjee, S. (2022). Exaggeration in fake vs. authentic online reviews for luxury and
budget hotels. International Journal of Information Management, 62, Article 102416.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102416
Berger, J., Sorensen, A. T., & Rasmussen, S. J. (2010). Positive effects of negative
publicity: When negative reviews increase sales. Marketing Science, 29(5), 815–827.
https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1090.0557
Bettman, J. R., Luce, M. F., & Payne, J. W. (1998). Constructive consumer choice
processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(3), 187–217. https://doi.org/10.1086/
209535
Bhandari, M., & Rodgers, S. (2018). What does the brand say? Effects of brand feedback
to negative eWOM on brand trust and purchase intentions. International Journal of
Advertising, 37(1), 125–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2017.1349030
Bhandari, M., Rodgers, S., & Pan, P.-L. (2021). Brand feedback to negative eWOM
messages: Effects of stability and controllability of problem causes on brand attitudes
and purchase intentions. Telematics and Informatics, 58, Article 101522. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.tele.2020.101522
Bian, Q., & Forsythe, S. (2012). Purchase intention for luxury brands: A cross cultural
comparison. Journal of Business Research, 65(10), 1443–1451. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.10.010
Birnbaum, M. H. (1972). Morality judgments: Tests of an averaging model. Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 93(1), 35. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0032589
Boulding, W., & Kirmani, A. (1993). A consumer-side experimental examination of
signaling theory: Do consumers perceive warranties as signals of quality? Journal of
Consumer Research, 20(1), 111–123. https://doi.org/10.1086/209337
Cambier, F., & Poncin, I. (2020). Inferring brand integrity from marketing
communications: The effects of brand transparency signals in a consumer
empowerment context. Journal of Business Research, 109, 260–270. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.11.060
Cao, Q., Duan, W., & Gan, Q. (2011). Exploring determinants of voting for the
“helpfulness” of online user reviews: A text mining approach. Decision Support
Systems, 50(2), 511–521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2010.11.009
Chaiken, S., & Maheswaran, D. (1994). Heuristic processing can bias systematic
processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance
on attitude judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(3), 460–473.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.3.460
Chen, Z., & Lurie, N. H. (2013). Temporal contiguity and negativity bias in the impact of
online word of mouth. Journal of Marketing Research, 50(4), 463–476. https://doi.
org/10.1509/jmr.12.0063
Chen, M.-J., & Farn, C.-K. (2020). Examining the Influence of Emotional Expressions in
Online Consumer Reviews on Perceived Helpfulness. Information Processing &
Management, 57(6), Article 102266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2020.102266
Cheong, J. W., Muthaly, S., Kuppusamy, M., & Han, C. (2020). The study of online
reviews and its relationship to online purchase intention for electronic products
among the millennials in Malaysia. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 32
(7), 1519–1538. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJML-03-2019-0192
Cheung, M. Y., Luo, C., Sia, C. L., & Chen, H. (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. https://
doi.org/10.2753/JEC1086-4415130402
Chevalier, J. A., & Mayzlin, D. (2006). The Effect of Word of Mouth on Sales: Online Book
Reviews. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(3), 345–354. https://doi.org/10.1509/
jmkr.43.3.345
Chiou, J.-S., Hsu, A.-C.-F., & Hsieh, C.-H. (2013). How negative online information
affects consumers’ brand evaluation: The moderating effects of brand attachment
and source credibility. Online Information Review, 37(6). https://doi.org/10.1509/
jmkr.43.3.345
Chua, A. Y., & Banerjee, S. (2015). Understanding review helpfulness as a function of
reviewer reputation, review rating, and review depth. Journal of the Association for
Information Science and Technology, 66(2), 354–362. https://doi.org/10.1002/
asi.23180
Chua, A. Y., & Banerjee, S. (2016). Helpfulness of user-generated reviews as a function of
review sentiment, product type and information quality. Computers in Human
Behavior, 54, 547–554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.08.057
Connelly, B. L., Certo, S. T., Ireland, R. D., & Reutzel, C. R. (2011). Signaling theory: A
review and assessment. Journal of Management, 37(1), 39–67.
Dabholkar, P. A. (1994). Incorporating choice into an attitudinal framework: Analyzing
models of mental comparison processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1),
100–118. https://doi.org/10.1086/209385
Duan, W., Gu, B., & Whinston, A. B. (2008). The dynamics of online word-of-mouth and
product sales—An empirical investigation of the movie industry. Journal of Retailing,
84(2), 233–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2008.04.005
East, R., Hammond, K., & Lomax, W. (2008). Measuring the impact of positive and
negative word of mouth on brand purchase probability. International Journal of
Research in Marketing, 25(3), 215–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijresmar.2008.04.001
Erdem, T., & Swait, J. (1998). Brand equity as a signaling phenomenon. Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 7(2), 131–157. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp0702_
02
Fang, B., Ye, Q., Kucukusta, D., & Law, R. (2016). Analysis of the perceived value of
online tourism reviews: Influence of readability and reviewer characteristics.
Tourism Management, 52, 498–506.
Feldman, J. M., & Lynch, J. G. (1988). Self-generated validity and other effects of
measurement on belief, attitude, intention, and behavior. Journal of applied
Psychology, 73(3), 421–435. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.73.3.421
12
Journal of Business Research 168 (2023) 114239
Filieri, R. (2015). What makes online reviews helpful? A diagnosticity-adoption
framework to explain informational and normative influences in e-WOM. Journal of
Business Research, 68(6), 1261–1270.
Filieri, R., McLeay, F., Tsui, B., & Lin, Z. (2018). Consumer perceptions of information
helpfulness and determinants of purchase intention in online consumer reviews of
services. Information & Management, 55(8), 956–970. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
im.2018.04.010
Filieri, R., Raguseo, E., & Vitari, C. (2019). What moderates the influence of extremely
negative ratings? The role of review and reviewer characteristics. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 77, 333–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhm.2018.07.013
Filieri, R., Raguseo, E., & Vitari, C. (2021). Extremely Negative Ratings and Online
Consumer Review Helpfulness: The Moderating Role of Product Quality Signals.
Journal of Travel Research, 60(4), 699–717. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0047287520916785
Floyd, K., Freling, R., Alhoqail, S., Cho, H. Y., & Freling, T. (2014). How online product
reviews affect retail sales: A meta-analysis. Journal of Retailing, 90(2), 217–232.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2014.04.004
Forman, C., Ghose, A., & Wiesenfeld, B. (2008). Examining the Relationship Between
Reviews and Sales: The Role of Reviewer Identity Disclosure in Electronic Markets.
Information Systems Research, 19(3), 291–313. https://doi.org/10.1287/
isre.1080.0193
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 Research, 31(2), 654–676. https://doi.org/10.1108/
INTR-01-2020-0031
Ghosh, T. (2018). Predicting hotel book intention: The influential role of helpfulness and
advocacy of online reviews. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 27(3),
299–322. https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2017.1364198
Ha, H.-Y. (2002). The Effects of Consumer Risk Perception on Pre-purchase Information
in Online Auctions: Brand, Word-of-Mouth, and Customized Information. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-
6101.2002.tb00160.x
Hair, J. F., Jr, Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L., & Kuppelwieser, V. G. (2014). Partial least
squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): An emerging tool in business
research. European Business Review. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-10-2013-0128
Han, S., & Kim, J. (2021). The Impacts of Volume and Valence of eWOM on Purchase
Intention for Movies: Mediation of Review Credibility. The Journal of the Korea
Contents Association, 21(7), 93–104. https://doi.org/10.5392/JKCA.2021.21.07.093
Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable
mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling. KS: University of Kansas.
He, X., Li, M. X., & Cheung, C. M. (2022). The Effect of Online Review Valence and
Scarcity Message on Purchase Intention: An Anticipated Regret Perspective. https
://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2022/256/.
Herr, P. M., Kardes, F. R., & Kim, J. (1991). Effects of Word-of-Mouth and Product-
Attribute Information on Persuasion: An Accessibility-Diagnosticity Perspective.
Journal of Consumer Research, 17(4), 454. https://doi.org/10.1086/208570
Hinkle, R. C. (1976). Durkheim’s evolutionary conception of social change. The
Sociological Quarterly, 17(3), 336–346. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.1976.
tb00987.x
Ho-Dac, N. N., Carson, S. J., & Moore, W. L. (2013). The effects of positive and negative
online customer reviews: Do brand strength and category maturity matter? Journal of
Marketing, 77(6), 37–53. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.11.0011
Hong, H., Di, X.u., Wang, G. A., & Fan, W. (2017). Understanding the determinants of
online review helpfulness: A meta-analytic investigation. Decision Support Systems,
102, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2017.06.007
Howard, D. J., & Gengler, C. (2001). Emotional contagion effects on product attitudes.
Journal of Consumer Research, 28(2), 189–201. https://doi.org/10.1086/322897
Hsu, C.-L., Lin, J.-C.-C., & Chiang, H.-S. (2013). The effects of blogger recommendations
on customers’ online shopping intentions. Internet Research. https://doi.org/
10.1108/10662241311295782
Hu, X., & Yang, Y. (2021). What makes online reviews helpful in tourism and hospitality?
A bare-bones meta-analysis. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 30(2),
139–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2020.1780178
Huang, G.-H., Chang, C.-T., Bilgihan, A., & Okumus, F. (2020). Helpful or harmful? A
double-edged sword of emoticons in online review helpfulness. Tourism Management,
81, Article 104135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2020.104135
Huang, L., Tan, C.-H., Ke, W., & Wei, K.-K. (2014). Do we order product review
information display? How? Information & Management, 51(7), 883–894. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.im.2014.05.002
Huang, A. H., Chen, K., Yen, D. C., & Tran, T. P. (2015). A study of factors that contribute
to online review helpfulness. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 17–27. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.010
Ismagilova, E., Rana, N. P., Slade, E. L., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2021). A meta-analysis of the
factors affecting eWOM providing behaviour. European Journal of Marketing, 55(4),
1067–1102. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-07-2018-0472
Ismagilova, E., Slade, E. L., Rana, N. P., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2020b). The effect of electronic
word of mouth communications on intention to buy: A meta-analysis. Information
Systems Frontiers, 22(5), 1203–1226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-019-09924-y
Ismagilova, E., Slade, E., Rana, N. P., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2020a). The effect of
characteristics of source credibility on consumer behaviour: A meta-analysis. Journal
of Retailing and Consumer Services, 53, Article 101736. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jretconser.2019.01.005
Jiang, Z., & Benbasat, I. (2004). Virtual product experience: Effects of visual and
functional control of products on perceived diagnosticity and flow in electronic
Y. Upadhyay and A. Tripathi
shopping. Journal of Management Information Systems, 21(3), 111–147. https://doi.
org/10.1080/07421222.2004.11045817
Jiang, & Benbasat. (2007). The Effects of Presentation Formats and Task Complexity on
Online Consumers’ Product Understanding. MIS Quarterly, 31(3), 475. https://doi.
org/10.2307/25148804
Johnson, E. J., & Payne, J. W. (1985). Effort and Accuracy in Choice. Management
Science, 31(4), 395–414. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.31.4.395
Jones, Q., Ravid, G., & Rafaeli, S. (2004). Information Overload and the Message
Dynamics of Online Interaction Spaces: A Theoretical Model and Empirical
Exploration. Information Systems Research, 15(2), 194–210. https://doi.org/10.1287/
isre.1040.0023
Kakaria, S., Simonetti, A., & Bigne, E. (2023). Interaction between extrinsic and intrinsic
online review cues: Perspectives from cue utilization theory. Electronic Commerce
Research, 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-022-09665-2
Karabas, I., Kareklas, I., Weber, T. J., & Muehling, D. D. (2021). The impact of review
valence and awareness of deceptive practices on consumers’ responses to online
product ratings and reviews. Journal of Marketing Communications, 27(7), 685–715.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2020.1759120
Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand
equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/
00222429930570010
Ketelaar, P. E., Willemsen, L. M., Sleven, L., & Kerkhof, P. (2015). The Good, the Bad, and
the Expert: How Consumer Expertise Affects Review Valence Effects on Purchase
Intentions in Online Product Reviews. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,
20(6), 649–666. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12139
Kietzmann, J., & Canhoto, A. (2013). Bittersweet! Understanding and Managing
Electronic Word of Mouth. Journal of Public Affairs, 13(2), 146–159. https://doi.org/
10.1002/pa.1470
Kirmani, A., & Rao, A. R. (2000). No Pain, No Gain: A critical review of the literature on
signaling unobservable product quality. Journal of Marketing, 64(2), 66–79.
Korfiatis, N., García-Bariocanal, E., & Sánchez-Alonso, S. (2012). Evaluating content
quality and helpfulness of online product reviews: The interplay of review
helpfulness vs. review content. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 11(3),
205–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2011.10.003
Kostyra, D. S., Reiner, J., Natter, M., & Klapper, D. (2016). Decomposing the effects of
online customer reviews on brand, price, and product attributes. International Journal
of Research in Marketing, 33(1), 11–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijresmar.2014.12.004
Krishnamoorthy, S. (2015). Linguistic features for review helpfulness prediction. Expert
Systems with Applications, 42(7), 3751–3759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
eswa.2014.12.044
Laczniak, R. N., DeCarlo, T. E., & Ramaswami, S. N. (2001). Consumers’ responses to
negative word-of-mouth communication: An attribution theory perspective. Journal
of Consumer Psychology, 11(1), 57–73. https://doi.org/10.1207/
S15327663JCP1101_5
Langan, R., Besharat, A., & Varki, S. (2017). The effect of review valence and variance on
product evaluations: An examination of intrinsic and extrinsic cues. International
Journal of Research in Marketing, 34(2), 414–429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijresmar.2016.10.004
Lee, M., Rodgers, S., & Kim, M. (2009). Effects of valence and extremity of eWOM on
attitude toward the brand and website. Journal of Current Issues & Research in
Advertising, 31(2), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/10641734.2009.10505262
Li, H., Wang, X., Wang, S., Zhou, W., & Yang, Z. (2022). The power of numbers: An
examination of the relationship between numerical cues in online review comments
and perceived review helpfulness. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIM-09-2021-0239
Li, C.-Y. (2017). Why do online consumers experience information overload? An
extension of communication theory. Journal of Information Science, 43(6), 835–851.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551516670096
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. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 55, Article 102107.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102107
Liang, S., Schuckert, M., & Law, R. (2019). How to improve the stated helpfulness of
hotel reviews? A multilevel approach. International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-02-2018-0134
Liu, Y. (2006). Word of mouth for movies: Its dynamics and impact on box office
revenue. Journal of Marketing, 70(3), 74–89. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.70.3.074
Liu, F., Lai, K., Wu, J., & Luo, X. (2022). How Electronic Word of Mouth Matters in Peer-
to-Peer Accommodation: The Role of Price and Responsiveness. International Journal
of Electronic Commerce, 26(2), 174–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10864415.2022.2050581
Liu, Z., & Park, S. (2015). What makes a useful online review? Implication for travel
product websites. Tourism Management, 47, 140–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tourman.2014.09.020
Lopez, A., & Garza, R. (2021). Do sensory reviews make more sense? The mediation of
objective perception in online review helpfulness. Journal of Research in Interactive
Marketing. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIM-04-2021-0121
Luan, J., Yao, Z., Zhao, F., & Liu, H. (2016). Search product and experience product
online reviews: An eye-tracking study on consumers’ review search behavior.
Computers in Human Behavior, 65, 420–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chb.2016.08.037
Lynch, J. J. G., Marmorstein, H., & Weigold, M. F. (1988). Choices from Sets Including
Remembered Brands: Use of Recalled Attributes and Prior Overall Evaluations.
Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 169. https://doi.org/10.1086/209155
13
Journal of Business Research 168 (2023) 114239
Ma, R., & Wang, W. (2021). Smile or pity? Examine the impact of emoticon valence on
customer satisfaction and purchase intention. Journal of Business Research, 134,
443–456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.05.057
Mariani, M. M., & Borghi, M. (2020). Online review helpfulness and firms’ financial
performance: An empirical study in a service industry. International Journal of
Electronic Commerce, 24(4), 421–449. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10864415.2020.1806464
Maslowska, E., Malthouse, E. C., & Viswanathan, V. (2017). Do customer reviews drive
purchase decisions? The moderating roles of review exposure and price. Decision
Support Systems, 98, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2017.03.010
Mauri, A. G., & Minazzi, R. (2013). Web reviews influence on expectations and
purchasing intentions of hotel potential customers. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 34, 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.02.012
Miyazaki, A. D., Grewal, D., & Goodstein, R. C. (2005). The Effect of Multiple Extrinsic
Cues on Quality Perceptions: A Matter of Consistency. Journal of Consumer Research,
32(1), 146–153. https://doi.org/10.1086/429606
Mizerski, R. W. (1982). An attribution explanation of the disproportionate influence of
unfavorable information. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(3), 301–310. https://doi.
org/10.1086/208925 Add to Citavi project by DOI
Moradi, M., & Zihagh, F. (2022). A meta-analysis of the elaboration likelihood model in
the electronic word of mouth literature. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 46
(5), 1900–1918. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12814
Mudambi, S. M., & Schuff, D. (2010). What makes a helpful online review? A study of
customer reviews on Amazon. com. MIS Quarterly, 34(1), 185–200. https://doi.org/
10.2307/20721420
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory (2nd edition). New York: McGraw.
Olson, J. C. (1972). Cue Utilization in the Quality Perception Process: A Cognitive Model and
an Empirical Test [doctoral dissertation]. Purdue University.
Olson, J. C., & Jacoby, J. (1972). Cue Utilization in the Quality Perception Process. In M.
Venkatesan (Ed.), SV - Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference of the
Association for Consumer Research (pp. 167–179). IL: Association for Consumer
Research.
Pan, Y., & Zhang, J. Q. (2011). Born unequal: A study of the helpfulness of user-
generated product reviews. Journal of Retailing, 87(4), 598–612. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jretai.2011.05.002
Park, S., & Nicolau, J. L. (2015). Asymmetric effects of online consumer reviews. Annals
of Tourism Research, 50, 67–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2014.10.007
Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1993). The adaptive decision maker.
Cambridge University Press.
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to
advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer
Research, 10(2), 135–146. https://doi.org/10.1086/208954
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation
hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42
(1), 185–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273170701341316
Pugh, S. D. (2001). Service with a smile: Emotional contagion in the service encounter.
Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 1018–1027. https://doi.org/10.5465/
3069445
Purnawirawan, N., De Pelsmacker, P., & Dens, N. (2012). Balance and sequence in online
reviews: How perceived usefulness affects attitudes and intentions. Journal of
Interactive Marketing, 26(4), 244–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
intmar.2012.04.002
Purnawirawan, N., Eisend, M., De Pelsmacker, P., & Dens, N. (2015). A meta-analytic
investigation of the role of valence in online reviews. Journal of Interactive Marketing,
31, 17–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2015.05.001
Purohit, D., & Srivastava, J. (2001). Effect of manufacturer reputation, retailer
reputation, and product warranty on consumer judgments of product quality: A cue
diagnosticity framework. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 10(3), 123–134. https://
doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp1003_1
Qazi, A., Syed, K. B. S., Raj, R. G., Cambria, E., Tahir, M., & Alghazzawi, D. (2016).
A concept-level approach to the analysis of online review helpfulness. Computers in
Human Behavior, 58, 75–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.12.028
Roberts, N., & Rees, M. (2014). ZzzStudent use of mobile devices in university lectures.
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 30(4). https://doi.org/10.14742/
ajet.589
Rust, R. T., Zeithaml, V. A., & Lemon, K. N. (2000). Driving Customer Equity: How
Customer Lifetime Value Is Reshaping Corporate Strategy. New York: The Free Press.
Rust, R. T., Lemon, K. N., & Zeithaml, V. A. (2001). Driving customer equity: Linking
customer lifetime value to strategic marketing decisions (Vol. 108). Marketing
Science Institute Cambridge, MA.
Schindler, R. M., & Bickart, B. (2012). Perceived helpfulness of online consumer reviews:
The role of message content and style. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 11(3),
234–243. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.1372
Sen, S., & Lerman, D. (2007). Why are you telling me this? An examination into negative
consumer reviews on the web. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 21(4), 76–94. https://
doi.org/10.1002/dir.20090
Shah, A. M., Yan, X., Shah, S. A. A., Shah, S. J., & Mamirkulova, G. (2019). Exploring the
impact of online information signals in leveraging the economic returns of
physicians. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 98, Article 103272. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103272
Shugan, S. M. (1980). The cost of thinking. Journal of Consumer Research, 7(2), 99.
https://doi.org/10.1086/208799
Shukla, A., & Mishra, A. (2022). Role of Review Length, Review Valence and Review
Credibility on Consumer’s Online Hotel Booking Intention. FIIB Business Review. ,
Article 23197145221099684. https://doi.org/10.1177/23197145221099683
Y. Upadhyay and A. Tripathi
Sim, Y., Lee, S. K., & Sutherland, I. (2021). The impact of latent topic valence of online
reviews on purchase intention for the accommodation industry. Tourism Management
Perspectives, 40, Article 100903. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2021.100903
Simmons, C. J., & Becker-Olsen, K. L. (2006). Achieving marketing objectives through
social sponsorships. Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 154–169. https://doi.org/10.1509/
jmkg.70.4.154
Simon, H. A. (1955). A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice. The Quarterly Journal of
Economics, 69(1), 99. https://doi.org/10.2307/1884852
Simon, H. A. (1990). Invariants of human behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 41,
1–19. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.41.020190.000245
Skowronski, J. J., & Carlston, D. E. (1987). Social judgment and social memory: The role
of cue diagnosticity in negativity, positivity, and extremity biases. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 52(4), 689–699. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.52.4.689
Skowronski, J. J., & Carlston, D. E. (1989). Negativity and extremity biases in impression
formation: A review of explanations. Psychological bulletin, 105(1), 131–142. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.105.1.131
Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. (1971). Comparison of Bayesian and regression approaches
to the study of information processing in judgment. Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, 6(6), 649–744. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(71)90033-
x 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2008.10722143
Spence, M. (1973). Job Market Signaling. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87(3),
355–374.
Stiglitz, J. E. (2002). Information and the change in the paradigm in economics. The
American Economic Review, 92(3), 460–501.
Tata, S. V., Prashar, S., & Gupta, S. (2020). An examination of the role of review valence
and review source in varying consumption contexts on purchase decision. Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, 52, Article 101734.
Teso, E., Olmedilla, M., Martínez-Torres, M. R., & Toral, S. L. (2018). Application of text
mining techniques to the analysis of discourse in eWOM communications from a
gender perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 129, 131–142.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.12.018
Thomas, M.-J., Wirtz, B. W., & Weyerer, J. C. (2019). Influencing factors of online
reviews: An empirical analysis of determinants of purchase intention. International
Journal of Electronic Business, 15(1), 43–71. https://doi.org/10.1504/
IJEB.2019.099062
Topaloglu, O., & Dass, M. (2021). The impact of online review content and linguistic
style matching on new product sales: The moderating role of review helpfulness.
Decision Sciences, 52(3), 749–775. https://doi.org/10.1111/deci.12378
Utz, S., Kerkhof, P., & Van Den Bos, J. (2012). Consumers rule: How consumer reviews
influence perceived trustworthiness of online stores. Electronic Commerce Research
and Applications, 11(1), 49–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2011.07.010
Verma, D., Dewani, P. P., Behl, A., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2023). Understanding the impact of
eWOM communication through the lens of information adoption model: A meta-
analytic structural equation modeling perspective. Computers in Human Behavior,
143, Article 107710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.107710
Verma, D., Prakash Dewani, P., Behl, A., Pereira, V., Dwivedi, Y., & Del Giudice, M.
(2023). A meta-analysis of antecedents and consequences of eWOM credibility:
Investigation of moderating role of culture and platform type. Journal of Business
Research, 154, Article 113292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.08.056
Vermeulen, I. E., & Seegers, D. (2009). Tried and tested: The impact of online hotel
reviews on consumer consideration. Tourism Management, 30(1), 123–127. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2008.04.008
Volckner, F. (2008). The dual role of price: Decomposing consumers’ reactions to price.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(3), 359–377. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11747-007-0076-7
Wang, C.-C., Li, M.-Z., & Yang, Y. Y. (2015). Perceived usefulness of word-of-mouth: An
analysis of sentimentality in product reviews. International Conference on
Multidisciplinary Social Networks Research, 448–459. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
662-48319-0_37
Wang, Y., & Kim, J. (2021). Interconnectedness between online review valence, brand,
and restaurant performance. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 48,
138–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2021.05.016
14
Journal of Business Research 168 (2023) 114239
Wang, Y., Kim, J., & Kim, J. (2021). The financial impact of online customer reviews in
the restaurant industry: A moderating effect of brand equity. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 95, Article 102895. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhm.2021.102895
Wang, Y., Wang, J., & Yao, T. (2019). What makes a helpful online review? A meta-
analysis of review characteristics. Electronic Commerce Research, 19(2), 257–284.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-018-9310-2
West, P. M., & Broniarczyk, S. M. (1998). Integrating multiple opinions: The role of
aspiration level on consumer response to critic consensus. Journal of Consumer
Research, 25(1), 38–51. https://doi.org/10.1086/209525
Wu, P. F. (2013). In search of negativity bias: An empirical study of perceived helpfulness
of online reviews. Psychology & Marketing, 30(11), 971–984. https://doi.org/
10.1002/mar.20660
Wyer, R. S. (1974). Changes in meaning and halo effects in personality impression
formation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29(6), 829. https://doi.org/
10.1037/h0036214
www.ETRetail.com. (2023). 2023: A peek into India’s evolving e-commerce market - ET
Retail. ETRetail.Com. https://retail.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/e-comme
rce/e-tailing/2023-a-peek-into-indias-evolving-e-commerce-market/96684905.
Xia, L., & Bechwati, N. N. (2008). Word of Mouse. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 9(1),
Xue, F., & Zhou, P. (2010). The effects of product involvement and prior experience on
Chinese consumers’ responses to online word of mouth. Journal of International
Consumer Marketing, 23(1), 45–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/
08961530.2011.524576
Yang, Y., Park, S., & Hu, X. (2018). Electronic word of mouth and hotel performance: A
meta-analysis. Tourism Management, 67, 248–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tourman.2018.01.015
Yin, D., Bond, S. D., & Zhang, H. (2014). Anxious or angry? Effects of discrete emotions
on the perceived helpfulness of online reviews. MIS Quarterly, 38(2), 539–560.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26634939.
You, Y., Vadakkepatt, G. G., & Joshi, A. M. (2015). A meta-analysis of electronic word-of-
mouth elasticity. Journal of Marketing, 79(2), 19–39. https://doi.org/10.1509/
jm.14.0169
Zhang, J. Q., Craciun, G., & Shin, D. (2010). When does electronic word-of-mouth
matter? A study of consumer product reviews. Journal of Business Research, 63(12),
1336–1341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.12.01
Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., Jr, & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and
truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197–206.
https://doi.org/10.1086/651257
Zhu, F., & Zhang, X. (2010). Impact of online consumer reviews on sales: The moderating
role of product and consumer characteristics. Journal of Marketing, 74(2), 133–148.
https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.74.2.133
Zinko, R., Patrick, A., Furner, C. P., Gaines, S., Kim, M. D., Negri, M., … Villarreal, C.
(2021). Responding to negative electronic word of mouth to improve purchase
intention. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 16(6),
1945–1959. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer16060109
Yogesh Upadhyay currently serves as full professor at School of Studies in Management
and Dean of Faculty of Management at Jiwaji University, Gwalior. He has served as a
founder Vice chancelor of ITM University, Gwalior and, also as, founder Provost of ITM
(SLS) Baroda Univeristy, Vadodara. His articles have appeard in International Journal of
Hospitality Management, Journal of Consumer Behavior, Journal of Vacation Marketing
among others.
Aditya Tripathi works as an assistant professor at ITM University Gwalior (M.P.) India. He
holds a bachelor’s degree in electronics and communications as well as an MBA in mar­
keting. He also has an advanced IT certification from NIIT. Throughout his career, he has
also received several awards for best instructor. His research interests are services mar­
keting service recovery and digital marketing. He has also worked for reputable firms in
the fields of operations, sales and marketing, and database administration.