• Asia Marketing Journal
• /
• v.15 no.4
• /
• pp.61-101
• /
• 2014

This study investigates when and how disagreements in online customer ratings prompt more favorable product evaluations. Among the three metrics of volume, valence, and variance that feature in the research on online customer ratings, volume and valence have exhibited consistently positive patterns in their effects on product sales or evaluations (e.g., Dellarocas, Zhang, and Awad 2007; Liu 2006). Ratings variance, or the degree of disagreement among reviewers, however, has shown rather mixed results, with some studies reporting positive effects on product sales (e.g., Clement, Proppe, and Rott 2007) while others finding negative effects on product evaluations (e.g., Zhu and Zhang 2010). This study aims to resolve these contradictory findings by introducing preference heterogeneity as a possible moderator and causal attribution as a mediator to account for the moderating effect. The main proposition of this study is that when preference heterogeneity is perceived as high, a disagreement in ratings is attributed more to reviewers' different preferences than to unreliable product quality, which in turn prompts better quality evaluations of a product. Because disagreements mostly result from differences in reviewers' tastes or the low reliability of a product's quality (Mizerski 1982; Sen and Lerman 2007), a greater level of attribution to reviewer tastes can mitigate the negative effect of disagreement on product evaluations. Specifically, if consumers infer that reviewers' heterogeneous preferences result in subjectively different experiences and thereby highly diverse ratings, they would not disregard the overall quality of a product. However, if consumers infer that reviewers' preferences are quite homogeneous and thus the low reliability of the product quality contributes to such disagreements, they would discount the overall product quality. Therefore, consumers would respond more favorably to disagreements in ratings when preference heterogeneity is perceived as high rather than low. This study furthermore extends this prediction to the various levels of average ratings. The heuristicsystematic processing model so far indicates that the engagement in effortful systematic processing occurs only when sufficient motivation is present (Hann et al. 2007; Maheswaran and Chaiken 1991; Martin and Davies 1998). One of the key factors affecting this motivation is the aspiration level of the decision maker. Only under conditions that meet or exceed his aspiration level does he tend to engage in systematic processing (Patzelt and Shepherd 2008; Stephanous and Sage 1987). Therefore, systematic causal attribution processing regarding ratings variance is likely more activated when the average rating is high enough to meet the aspiration level than when it is too low to meet it. Considering that the interaction between ratings variance and preference heterogeneity occurs through the mediation of causal attribution, this greater activation of causal attribution in high versus low average ratings would lead to more pronounced interaction between ratings variance and preference heterogeneity in high versus low average ratings. Overall, this study proposes that the interaction between ratings variance and preference heterogeneity is more pronounced when the average rating is high as compared to when it is low. Two laboratory studies lend support to these predictions. Study 1 reveals that participants exposed to a high-preference heterogeneity book title (i.e., a novel) attributed disagreement in ratings more to reviewers' tastes, and thereby more favorably evaluated books with such ratings, compared to those exposed to a low-preference heterogeneity title (i.e., an English listening practice book). Study 2 then extended these findings to the various levels of average ratings and found that this greater preference for disagreement options under high preference heterogeneity is more pronounced when the average rating is high compared to when it is low. This study makes an important theoretical contribution to the online customer ratings literature by showing that preference heterogeneity serves as a key moderator of the effect of ratings variance on product evaluations and that causal attribution acts as a mediator of this moderation effect. A more comprehensive picture of the interplay among ratings variance, preference heterogeneity, and average ratings is also provided by revealing that the interaction between ratings variance and preference heterogeneity varies as a function of the average rating. In addition, this work provides some significant managerial implications for marketers in terms of how they manage word of mouth. Because a lack of consensus creates some uncertainty and anxiety over the given information, consumers experience a psychological burden regarding their choice of a product when ratings show disagreement. The results of this study offer a way to address this problem. By explicitly clarifying that there are many more differences in tastes among reviewers than expected, marketers can allow consumers to speculate that differing tastes of reviewers rather than an uncertain or poor product quality contribute to such conflicts in ratings. Thus, when fierce disagreements are observed in the WOM arena, marketers are advised to communicate to consumers that diverse, rather than uniform, tastes govern reviews and evaluations of products.

• Asia pacific journal of information systems
• /
• v.17 no.4
• /
• pp.31-59
• /
• 2007

We frequently use search engines to find relevant information in the Web but still end up with too much information. In order to solve this problem of information overload, ranking algorithms have been applied to various domains. As more information will be available in the future, effectively and efficiently ranking search results will become more critical. In this paper, we propose a ranking algorithm for the Semantic Web resources, specifically RDF resources. Traditionally, the importance of a particular Web page is estimated based on the number of key words found in the page, which is subject to manipulation. In contrast, link analysis methods such as Google's PageRank capitalize on the information which is inherent in the link structure of the Web graph. PageRank considers a certain page highly important if it is referred to by many other pages. The degree of the importance also increases if the importance of the referring pages is high. Kleinberg's algorithm is another link-structure based ranking algorithm for Web pages. Unlike PageRank, Kleinberg's algorithm utilizes two kinds of scores: the authority score and the hub score. If a page has a high authority score, it is an authority on a given topic and many pages refer to it. A page with a high hub score links to many authoritative pages. As mentioned above, the link-structure based ranking method has been playing an essential role in World Wide Web(WWW), and nowadays, many people recognize the effectiveness and efficiency of it. On the other hand, as Resource Description Framework(RDF) data model forms the foundation of the Semantic Web, any information in the Semantic Web can be expressed with RDF graph, making the ranking algorithm for RDF knowledge bases greatly important. The RDF graph consists of nodes and directional links similar to the Web graph. As a result, the link-structure based ranking method seems to be highly applicable to ranking the Semantic Web resources. However, the information space of the Semantic Web is more complex than that of WWW. For instance, WWW can be considered as one huge class, i.e., a collection of Web pages, which has only a recursive property, i.e., a 'refers to' property corresponding to the hyperlinks. However, the Semantic Web encompasses various kinds of classes and properties, and consequently, ranking methods used in WWW should be modified to reflect the complexity of the information space in the Semantic Web. Previous research addressed the ranking problem of query results retrieved from RDF knowledge bases. Mukherjea and Bamba modified Kleinberg's algorithm in order to apply their algorithm to rank the Semantic Web resources. They defined the objectivity score and the subjectivity score of a resource, which correspond to the authority score and the hub score of Kleinberg's, respectively. They concentrated on the diversity of properties and introduced property weights to control the influence of a resource on another resource depending on the characteristic of the property linking the two resources. A node with a high objectivity score becomes the object of many RDF triples, and a node with a high subjectivity score becomes the subject of many RDF triples. They developed several kinds of Semantic Web systems in order to validate their technique and showed some experimental results verifying the applicability of their method to the Semantic Web. Despite their efforts, however, there remained some limitations which they reported in their paper. First, their algorithm is useful only when a Semantic Web system represents most of the knowledge pertaining to a certain domain. In other words, the ratio of links to nodes should be high, or overall resources should be described in detail, to a certain degree for their algorithm to properly work. Second, a Tightly-Knit Community(TKC) effect, the phenomenon that pages which are less important but yet densely connected have higher scores than the ones that are more important but sparsely connected, remains as problematic. Third, a resource may have a high score, not because it is actually important, but simply because it is very common and as a consequence it has many links pointing to it. In this paper, we examine such ranking problems from a novel perspective and propose a new algorithm which can solve the problems under the previous studies. Our proposed method is based on a class-oriented approach. In contrast to the predicate-oriented approach entertained by the previous research, a user, under our approach, determines the weights of a property by comparing its relative significance to the other properties when evaluating the importance of resources in a specific class. This approach stems from the idea that most queries are supposed to find resources belonging to the same class in the Semantic Web, which consists of many heterogeneous classes in RDF Schema. This approach closely reflects the way that people, in the real world, evaluate something, and will turn out to be superior to the predicate-oriented approach for the Semantic Web. Our proposed algorithm can resolve the TKC(Tightly Knit Community) effect, and further can shed lights on other limitations posed by the previous research. In addition, we propose two ways to incorporate data-type properties which have not been employed even in the case when they have some significance on the resource importance. We designed an experiment to show the effectiveness of our proposed algorithm and the validity of ranking results, which was not tried ever in previous research. We also conducted a comprehensive mathematical analysis, which was overlooked in previous research. The mathematical analysis enabled us to simplify the calculation procedure. Finally, we summarize our experimental results and discuss further research issues.