ArticleFrontiers in psychology2022
How Do Review Party's Identity Cues Influence Consumers' Online Review Adoption Intention?
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Professionalism and popularity are two important external identity cues of the review party. Previous studies have mostly focused on the content of the reviewers' comments. However, few studies have explored the potential impact of the review party's cues on consumers' adoption willingness and consumption behavior. This study mainly examined the neural mechanisms of how the differences in the two identity cues of the review party affect consumers while adopting the comments. The current study employed an event-related potential (ERP) experiment, in which the participants were asked to make a personal choice quickly based on the review party's identity cues after seeing the target product. A 2-level professionalism (low vs. high) x 2-level popularity (low vs. high) experiment design was used to test the impact of the review party's professionalism and popularity on consumers' intentions to adopt the review. The behavioral data reveal that the two identity cues of the review party impact the adoption rate, and the review party's popularity has an impact on the reaction time. The ERP data indicate that the review party's popularity affects the perceived risk (the N2 component, which is a high-risk signal) and the two identity cues of the review party affect the evaluation and classification process [the later positive potential (LPP) component]. These results indicate that when the review party has a high degree of professionalism, its popularity has less influence on consumers' review adoption intention. On the contrary, when the level of professionalism is low, high popularity will promote consumers' review adoption intention. Compared to professionalism, popularity is a higher risk cue for consumers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.