Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Online consumer reviews: Does negative electronic word-of-mouth hurt more?

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Conference contribution › peer-review

33 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Web-based technologies have created numerous opportunities for electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) communication. This phenomenon impacts retailers as this easily accessible information could greatly affect consumer purchasing decision. The connectivity of the Web allows one-to-many and many-to-many communications among users that make information spread much faster and broader, including the spread of negative information. In this paper, we investigate the impact of online consumer reviews on consumer online purchasing decision. Specifically, we compare the impact of both negative and positive eWOM using a laboratory experiment. Our results show that the mean values of emotional trust and intention to shop online are significantly lower in the negative treatment group. We expect the result of this paper will generate researchers and marketers' interest in this important area of research and practice.

Original languageEnglish
Title of host publication14th Americas Conference on Information Systems, AMCIS 2008
Pages3242-3251
Number of pages10
Publication statusPublished - 2008
Externally publishedYes
Event14th Americas Conference on Information Systems, AMCIS 2008 - Toronto, ON, Canada
Duration: 14 Aug 2008 → 17 Aug 2008

Publication series

Name14th Americas Conference on Information Systems, AMCIS 2008
Volume5

Conference

Conference14th Americas Conference on Information Systems, AMCIS 2008
Country/TerritoryCanada
CityToronto, ON
Period14/08/08 → 17/08/08

Keywords

  • Electronic commerce
  • Electronic word-of-mouth
  • Negativity bias
  • Online consumer opinion platform
  • Online shopping
  • Trust

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Online consumer reviews: Does negative electronic word-of-mouth hurt more?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this