Factors affecting the adoption of an electronic word of mouth message: A meta-analysis

CITATION

Qahri-Saremi, H., & Montazemi, A. R. (2019). Factors affecting the adoption of an electronic word of mouth message: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management Information Systems, 36(3), 969-1001. doi:10.1080/07421222.2019.1628936

For library access / research help in a similar topic: anyangoceline19@gmail.com

ABSTRACT
Electronic word of mouth (eWoM) messages are increasingly consequential
for consumers’ decisions regarding products/services. This has led to
a large body of scholarly research on factors affecting eWoM message adoption.
Adoption of an eWoM message refers to accepting the information and recommendations contained in an eWoM message, which consequently influence
consumers’ cognitive and behavioral tendencies toward pertinent products/services.
Notwithstanding the contributions of prior eWoM studies, we observe inconsistent
findings across these studies that make a consensus difficult to reach. Lack of
consistency is also evident among eWoM service providers in the selection and
presentation order of the pertinent factors on their sites. To address this gap, we
draw on the heuristic-systematic model in a meta-analytic structural equation
modeling study to test a nomological eWoM adoption model that assesses the
factors affecting the adoption of an eWoM message. Our meta-analysis of 87
eWoM studies, comprising 105,318 observations, sheds light on eight factors
toward eWoM message adoption. Our findings unravel the multitude of ways in
which these factors can influence eWoM message adoption and show the relative
importance of these factors based on their total effects on eWoM message adoption.
This enables the eWoM service providers to enhance the inconsistencies in the
selection and presentation order of important factors toward eWoM message adoption
on their sites.


REFERENCES
1. Adjei, M.T., Noble, S.M., and Noble, C.H. The influence of c2c communications in
online brand communities on customer purchase behavior. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 38, 5 (2010), 634–653.

2. Alavi, M., and Leidner, D.E. Review: Knowledge management and knowledge management
systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25, 1 (2001),
107–136.

3. Alwin, D.F., and Hauser, R.M. The decomposition of effects in path analysis.
American Sociological Review, 40, 1 (1975), 37–47.

4. Baroudi, J.J., and Orlikowski, W.J. The problem of statistical power in mis research.
MIS Quarterly, 13, 1 (1989), 87–106.

5. Barreto, H., and Howland, F. Omitted variable bias. In H. Barreto and F. Howland
(eds.), Introductory Econometrics: Using Monte Carlo Simulation with Microsoft Excel.
New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005, pp. 490–507.

6. Baumeister, R.F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., and Vohs, K.D. Bad is stronger than
good. Review of General Psychology, 5, 4 (2001), 323–370.

7. Beaton, C. Why you can’t really trust negative online reviews. NewYork Times, https://
www.nytimes.com/2018/06/13/smarter-living/trust-negative-product-reviews.html, 2018.

8. Benlian, A., Titah, R., and Hess, T. Differential effects of provider recommendations
and consumer reviews in e-commerce transactions: An experimental study. Journal of
Management Information Systems, 29, 1 (2012), 237–272.

9. Bergh, D.D., Aguinis, H., Heavey, C., Ketchen, D.J., Boyd, B.K., Su, P., Lau, C.L., and
Joo, H. Using meta-analytic structural equation modeling to advance strategic management
research: Guidelines and an empirical illustration via the strategic leadership — performance
relationship. Strategic Management Journal, 37, 3 (2016), 477–497.

10. Bohner, G., Moskowitz, G.B., and Chaiken, S. The interplay of heuristic and systematic
processing of social information. European Review of Social Psychology, 6, 1 (1995),
33–68.

11. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L., and Rothstein, H. Meta-analysis: Fixed effect vs. Random
effects. 2007, https://www.meta-analysis.com/downloads/M-a_f_e_v_r_e_sv.pdf.

12. Borenstein, M., Higgins, J.P., Hedges, L.V., and Rothstein, H.R. Basics of metaanalysis:
I2 is not an absolute measure of heterogeneity. Research Synthesis Methods, 8, 1
(2017), 5–18.

13. Chaiken, S. Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source
versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 5
(1980), 752.

14. Chaiken, S., Liberman, A., and Eagly, A.H. Heuristic and systematic information
processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In J.S. Uleman and J.A. Bargh
(eds.), Unintended Thought. New York: The Guilford Press, 1989, pp. 212–252.

15. Chaiken, S., and Maheswaran, D. 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 (1994), 460.

16. Chan, M.-p.S., Jones, C.R., Hall Jamieson, K., and Albarracín, D. Debunking: A
meta-analysis of the psychological efficacy of messages countering misinformation.
Psychological Science, 28, 11 (2017), 1531–1546.

17. Chen, S., and Chaiken, S. The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context. In
S. Chaiken and Y. Trope (eds.). Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology. New York: The
Guilford Press, 1999, pp. 73–96.

18. Chen, Z., and Lurie, N.H. Temporal contiguity and negativity bias in the impact of
online word of mouth. Journal of Marketing Research, 50, 4 (2013), 463–476.

19. Cheung, C.M.-Y., Sia, C.-L., and Kuan, K.K. Is this review believable? A study of
factors affecting the credibility of online consumer reviews from an elm perspective. Journal
of the Association for Information Systems, 13, 8 (2012), 618–635.

20. Cheung, C.M.K., Lee, M.K.O., and Rabjohn, N. The impact of electronic word-ofmouth:
The adoption of online opinions in online customer communities. Internet Research,
18, 3 (2008), 229–247.

21. Cheung, C.M.K., and Thadani, D.R. The impact of electronic word-of-mouth communication:
A literature analysis and integrative model. Decision Support Systems, 54, 1 (2012),
461–470.

22. Cheung, M.W.-L. Metasem: An r package for meta-analysis using structural equation
modeling. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Article 1521 (2015), 1–7.

23. Cheung, M.W.-L. Meta-Analysis: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach. West
Sussex,UK: John Wiley & Sons, 2015.

24. Cheung, M.W.L., and Chan, W. Meta-analytic structural equation modeling: A
two-stage approach. Psychological Methods, 10, 1 (2005), 40–64.

25. Cheung, M.W.L., and Chan, W. A two-stage approach to synthesizing covariance
matrices in meta-analytic structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 16,
1 (2009), 28–53.

26. Cheung, M.W.L., and Hafdahl, A.R. Special issue on meta — analytic structural
equation modeling: Introduction from the guest editors. Research Synthesis Methods, 7, 2
(2016), 112–120.

27. Cheung, M.Y., Luo, C., SIA, C.L., and Chen, H. How do people evaluate electronic
word-of-mouth? Informational and normative based determinants of perceived credibility of
online consumer recommendations in china. Pacific-Asia Conference on Information Systems
(PACIS 07), Auckland, New Zealand: AIS, 2007, pp. 69–81.

28. Cheung, M.Y., Luo, C., Sia, C.L., and Chen, H. Credibility of electronic word-ofmouth:
Informational and normative determinants of on-line consumer recommendations.
International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 13, 4 (2009), 9–38.

29. Cheung, R. The influence of electronic word-of-mouth on information adoption in
online customer communities. Global Economic Review, 43, 1 (2014), 42–57.

30. Chin, W.W. Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling. MIS Quarterly, 22, 1
(1998), 7–16.

31. Clare, C.J., Wright, G., Sandiford, P., and Caceres, A.P. Why should i believe this?
Deciphering the qualities of a credible online customer review. Journal of Marketing
Communications, 24, 8 (2018), 823–842.

32. Clarke, K.A. The phantom menace: Omitted variable bias in econometric research.
Conflict Management and Peace Science, 22, 4 (2005), 341–352.

33. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum, 1988.

34. Coursaris, C.K., Van Osch, W., and Albini, A. Antecedents and consequents of
information usefulness in user-generated online reviews: A multi-group moderation analysis
of review valence. AIS Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction, 10, 1 (2018), 1–25.

35. Doh, S.J., and Hwang, J.S. How consumers evaluate ewom (electronic word-of-mouth)
messages. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12, 2 (2009), 193–197.

36. Eagly, A.H., Wood, W., and Chaiken, S. Causal inferences about communicators and
their effect on opinion change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 4 (1978),
424.

37. Eagly, A.H., and Chaiken, S. The Psychology of Attitudes. Orlando, FL: Harcourt
Brace Jovanovich College Publishers, 1993.

38. Eden, D. From the editors: Replication, meta-analysis, scientific progress, and AMJ’s
publication policy. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 5 (2002), 841–846.

39. eMarketer Inc. Moms place trust in other consumers. 2010, http://www.emarketer.com/
Article/Moms-Place-Trust-Other-Consumers/1007509.

40. Erkan, I., and Evans, C. The influence of ewom in social media on consumers’
purchase intentions: An extended approach to information adoption. Computers in Human
Behavior, 61(2016), 47–55.

41. Fang, C.-H., Lin, T.M., Liu, F., and Lin, Y.H. Product type and word of mouth:
A dyadic perspective. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 5, 2/3 (2011),
189–202.

42. Fang, Y.-H. Beyond the credibility of electronic word of mouth: Exploring ewom
adoption on social networking sites from affective and curiosity perspectives. International
Journal of Electronic Commerce, 18, 3 (2014), 67–102.

43. Faraj, S., von Krogh, G., Monteiro, E., and Lakhani, K.R. Online community as space
for knowledge flows. Information Systems Research, 27, 4 (2016), 668–684.

44. Filieri, R., and McLeay, F. E-wom and accommodation an analysis of the factors that
influence travelers’ adoption of information from online reviews. Journal of Travel
Research, 53, 1 (2014), 44–57.

45. Filieri, R. What makes online reviews helpful? A diagnosticity-adoption framework to
explain informational and normative influences in e-WOM. Journal of Business Research,
68, 6 (2015), 1261–1270.

46. Filieri, R., Hofacker, C.F., and Alguezaui, S. What makes information in online
consumer reviews diagnostic over time? The role of review relevancy, factuality, currency,
source credibility and ranking score. Computers in Human Behavior, 80(2018),
122–131.

47. Filieri, R., McLeay, F., Tsui, B., and Lin, Z. Consumer perceptions of information
helpfulness and determinants of purchase intention in online consumer reviews of services.
Information & Management, 55, 8 (2018), 956–970.

48. Flanagin, A.J., and Metzger, M.J. Perceptions of internet information credibility.
Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 77, 3 (2000), 515–540.

49. Fogg, B.J. Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change What We Think and
Do. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 2003.

50. Gruen, T.W., Osmonbekov, T., and Czaplewski, A.J. E-WOM: The impact of
customer-to-customer online know-how exchange on customer value and loyalty. Journal
of Business Research, 59, 4 (2006), 449–456.

51. Hart, R.G., Pearce, L.A., and Aguilar, M.I. Meta-analysis: Antithrombotic therapy to
prevent stroke in patients who have nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Annals of Internal
Medicine, 146, 12 (2007), 857–867.

52. He, J., and King, W.R. The role of user participation in information systems development:
Implications from a meta-analysis. Journal of Management Information Systems, 25, 1
(2008), 301–331.

53. Herr, P.M., Kardes, F.R., and Kim, J. Effects of word-of-mouth and product-attribute
information on persuasion: An accessibility-diagnosticity perspective. Journal of Consumer
Research, 17(1991), 454–462.

54. Higgins, J., and Thompson, S.G. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis.
Statistics in Medicine, 21, 11 (2002), 1539–1558.

55. Hong, H., Xu, D., Wang, G.A., and Fan, W. Understanding the determinants of online
review helpfulness: A meta-analytic investigation. Decision Support Systems, 102(2017),
1–11.

56. Hovland, C., Janis, I., and Kelley, H. Communication and Persuasion: Psychological
Studies of Opinion Change. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1953.

57. Hsu, C.-L., Lin, J.C.-C., and Chiang, H.-S. The effects of blogger recommendations on
customers’ online shopping intentions. Internet Research, 23, 1 (2013), 69–88.

58. Hunter, J.E., and Schmidt, F.L. Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias
in Research Findings. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc, 2004.

59. Jensen, M.L., Averbeck, J.M., Zhang, Z., and Wright, K.B. Credibility of anonymous
online product reviews: A language expectancy perspective. Journal of Management
Information Systems, 30, 1 (2013), 293–324.

60. Johnston, A.C., Warkentin, M., and Siponen, M. An enhanced fear appeal rhetorical
framework: Leveraging threats to the human asset through sanctioning rhetoric. MIS
Quarterly, 39, 1 (2015), 113–134.

61. Joseph, D., Ng, K.Y., Koh, C., and Ang, S. Turnover of information technology
professionals: A narrative review, meta-analytic structural equation modeling, and model
development. MIS Quarterly, 31, 3 (2007), 547–577.

62. Kelley, H.H. The processes of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28, 2 (1973),
107–128.

63. Kelley, H.H., and Michela, J.L. Attribution theory and research. Annual Review of
Psychology, 31, 1 (1980), 457–501.

64. Kim, J., and Gupta, P. Emotional expressions in online user reviews: How they
influence consumers’ product evaluations. Journal of Business Research, 65, 7 (2012),
985–992.

65. Kline, R.B. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York:
Guilford publications, 2016.

66. Kong, D.T., Dirks, K., and Ferrin, D. Interpersonal trust within negotiations:
Meta-analytic evidence, critical contingencies, and directions for future research. Academy
of Management Journal, 57, 5 (2014), 1235–1255.

67. Ku, Y.-C., Wei, C.-P., and Hsiao, H.-W. To whom should i listen? Finding reputable
reviewers in opinion-sharing communities. Decision Support Systems, 53, 3 (2012),
534–542.

68. Lim, Y.s., and Van Der Heide, B. Evaluating the wisdom of strangers: The perceived
credibility of online consumer reviews on yelp. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 20, 1 (2015), 67–82.

69. Liu, Z., and Park, S. What makes a useful online review? Implication for travel product
websites. Tourism Management, 47(2015), 140–151.

70. Lowry, P.B., Moody, G., Vance, A., Jensen, M., Jenkins, J., and Wells, T. Using an
elaboration likelihood approach to better understand the persuasiveness of website privacy
assurance cues for online consumers. Journal of the Association for Information Science and
Technology, 63, 4 (2012), 755–776.

71. Luo, C., Luo, X.R., Schatzberg, L., and Sia, C.L. Impact of informational factors on
online recommendation credibility: The moderating role of source credibility. Decision
Support Systems, 56(2013), 92–102.

72. Luo, H., Li, Z., and Luo, H. Empirical research on the effect of online review on
customers’ purchasing intention. International Conference on Service Systems and Service
Management (ICSSSM), Hong Kong, China: IEEE, 2013, pp. 214–219.

73. Lynch, J.G. Accessibility-diagnosticity and the multiple pathway anchoring and adjustment
model. Journal of Consumer Research, 33, 1 (2006), 25–27.

74. Ma, X.S., Khansa, L., Deng, Y., and Kim, S.S. Impact of prior reviews on the
subsequent review process in reputation systems. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 30, 3 (2013), 279–310.

75. Maassen, G.H., and Bakker, A.B. Suppressor variables in path models: Definitions and
interpretations. Sociological Methods & Research, 30, 2 (2001), 241–270.

76. MacKinnon, D.P., Krull, J.L., and Lockwood, C.M. Equivalence of the mediation,
confounding and suppression effect. Prevention Science, 1, 4 (2000), 173–181.

77. Meservy, T.O., Jensen, M.L., and Fadel, K.J. Evaluation of competing candidate
solutions in electronic networks of practice. Information Systems Research, 25, 1 (2014),
15–34.

78. Metzger, M.J., Flanagin, A.J., Eyal, K., Lemus, D.R., and McCann, R.M. Credibility
for the 21st century: Integrating perspectives on source, message, and media credibility in the
contemporary media environment. Annals of the International Communication Association,
27, 1 (2003), 293–335.

79. Metzger, M.J. Making sense of credibility on the web: Models for evaluating online
information and recommendations for future research. Journal of the Association for
Information Science and Technology, 58, 13 (2007), 2078–2091.

80. Metzger, M.J., Flanagin, A.J., and Medders, R.B. Social and heuristic approaches to
credibility evaluation online. Journal of Communication, 60, 3 (2010), 413–439.

81. Metzger, M.J., and Flanagin, A.J. Credibility and trust of information in online
environments: The use of cognitive heuristics. Journal of Pragmatics, 59(2013), 210–220.

82. Metzger, M.J., Hartsell, E.H., and Flanagin, A.J. Cognitive dissonance or credibility?
A comparison of two theoretical explanations for selective exposure to partisan news.
Communication Research, Article In Press (2015), 1–26.

83. Montazemi, A.R., and Wang, S. The effects of modes of information presentation on
decision-making: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Management Information Systems,
5, 3 (1989), 101–127.

84. Montazemi, A.R., Pittaway, J.J., Qahri-Saremi, H., and Wei, Y. Factors of stickiness in
transfers of know-how between mnc units. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 21
(2012), 31–57.

85. Montazemi, A.R., and Qahri-Saremi, H. Factors affecting adoption of online banking:
A meta-analytic structural equation modeling study. Information & Management, 52, 2
(2015), 210–226.

86. Mudambi, S.M., and Schuff, D. What makes a helpful online review? A study of
customer reviews on amazon.Com. MIS Quarterly, 34, 1 (2010), 185–200.

87. Nonaka, I. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization
Science, 5, 1 (1994), 14–37.

88. Pentina, I., Bailey, A.A., and Zhang, L. Exploring effects of source similarity, message
valence, and receiver regulatory focus on Yelp review persuasiveness and purchase
intentions. Journal of Marketing Communications, 24, 2 (2018), 125–145.

89. Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T., and Goldman, R. Personal involvement as a determinant of
argument-based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 5 (1981),
847–855.

90. Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T., and Schumann, D. Central and peripheral routes to
advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer
Research, 10, 2 (1983), 135–146.

91. Petty, R.E., and Cacioppo, J.T. The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion.
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 1 (1986), 123–205.

92. Petty, R.E., and Cacioppo, J.T. Message elaboration versus peripheral cues. In R.
E. Petty and J.T. Cacioppo (eds.), Communication and Persuasion. New York: Springer,
1986, pp. 141–172.

93. Purssell, E. Meta-Analysis in R Using Metafor, Meta and Mad. https://www.research
gate.net/publication/276271680_Meta-analysis_in_R_using_metafor_meta_and_MAd,
2015.

94. Qahri-Saremi, H., and Montazemi, A. On the effectiveness of eWOM communications:
The moderating effect of consumers’ prior experience. Americas’ Conference on
Information Systems (AMCIS), San Diego, CA, 2016.

95. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna,
Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2017.

96. Reimer, T., and Benkenstein, M. When good WOM hurts and bad WOM gains: The
effect of untrustworthy online reviews. Journal of Business Research, 69, 12 (2016),
5993–6001.

97. Rosenthal, P.I. Specificity, verifiability, and message credibility. Quarterly Journal of
Speech, 57, 4 (1971), 393–401.

98. Rosenthal, R. The “file drawer problem” and tolerance for null results. Psychological
Bulletin, 86, 3 (1979), 638–641.

99. Rosenthal, R. Writing meta-analytic reviews. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 2 (1995),
183–192.

100. Rozin, P., and Royzman, E.B. Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 4 (2001), 296–320.

101. Scaffidi, C., Bierhoff, K., Chang, E., Felker, M., Ng, H., and Jin, C. Red opal: Productfeature
scoring from reviews. Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) Conference on
Electronic Commerce, San Diego, California, USA, 2007, pp. 182–191.

102. Shamseer, L., Moher, D., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M.,
Shekelle, P., and Stewart, L.A. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and
meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-p) 2015: Elaboration and explanation. BMJ, 350, g7647
(2015), 1–25.

103. Sharma, R., and Yetton, P. The contingent effects of training, technical complexity, and
task interdependence on successful information systems implementation. MIS Quarterly, 31,
2 (2007), 219–238.

104. Shaw, J.D., and Ertug, G. From the editors: The suitability of simulations and
meta-analyses for submissions to academy of management journal. Academy of
Management Journal, 60, 6 (2017), 2045–2049.

105. Skowronski, J.J., and Carlston, D.E. Negativity and extremity biases in impression
formation: A review of explanations. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 1 (1989), 131–142.

106. Sun, Y., Dong, X., and McIntyre, S. Motivation of user-generated content: Social
connectedness moderates the effects of monetary rewards. Marketing Science, 36, 3
(2017), 329–337.

107. Sussman, S.W., and Siegal, W.S. Informational influence in organizations: An integrated
approach to knowledge adoption. Information Systems Research, 14, 1 (2003), 47–65.

108. Tversky, A., and Kahneman, D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of
choice. Science, 211, 4481 (1981), 453–458.

109. Van Hoye, G., and Lievens, F. Social influences on organizational attractiveness:
Investigating if and when word of mouth matters. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
37, 9 (2007), 2024–2047.

110. Viechtbauer, W. Conducting meta-analyses in r with the metafor package. Journal of
Statistical Software, 36, 3 (2010), 1–48.

111. Viswesvaran, C., and Ones, D.S. Theory testing: Combining psychometric meta
analysis and structural equation modeling. Personnel Psychology, 48, 4 (1995), 865–885.

112. Walter, N., and Murphy, S.T. How to unring the bell: A meta-analytic approach to
correction of misinformation. Communication Monographs, 85, 3 (2018), 423–441.

113. Wathen, C.N., and Burkell, J. Believe it or not: Factors influencing credibility on the
web. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53, 2 (2002),
134–144.

114. Willemsen, L.M., Neijens, P.C., Bronner, F., and De Ridder, J.A. “Highly recommended!”
the content characteristics and perceived usefulness of online consumer reviews.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17, 1 (2011), 19–38.

115. Wolfswinkel, J.F., Furtmueller, E., and Wilderom, C.P.M. Using grounded theory as
a method for rigorously reviewing literature. European Journal of Information Systems, 22
(2013), 45–55.

116. Wu, J., and Lederer, A. A meta-analysis of the role of environment-based voluntariness
in information technology acceptance. MIS Quarterly, 33, 2 (2009), 419–432.

117. Wu, P.F., Van der Heijden, H., and Korfiatis, N. The influences of negativity and
review quality on the helpfulness of online reviews. International Conference on Information
Systems (ICIS), Shanghai, China: AIS, 2011, pp. 1–10.

118. Wu, P.F. In search of negativity bias: An empirical study of perceived helpfulness of
online reviews. Psychology & Marketing, 30, 11 (2013), 971–984.

119. Yamamoto, M., Yamasaki, T., and Aizawa, K. Service annotation and profiling by
review analysis. IEEE International Conference on Multimedia Big Data (BigMM), Taipei,
Taiwan: IEEE, 2016, pp. 357–364.

120. Yamamoto, M., Xing, Y., Yamasaki, T., and Aizawa, K. An unsupervised service
annotation by review analysis. International Journal of Big Data Intelligence, 5, 1–2
(2018), 73–89.

121. Yan, L., and Tan, Y. The consensus effect in online health-care communities. Journal
of Management Information Systems, 34, 1 (2017), 11–39.

122. Yeh, Y.-H., and Choi, S.M. Mini-lovers, maxi-mouths: An investigation of antecedents
to eWOM intention among brand community members. Journal of Marketing
Communications, 17, 3 (2011), 145–162.

123. Zhang, J.Q., Craciun, G., and Shin, D. When does electronic word-of-mouth matter?
A study of consumer product reviews. Journal of Business Research, 63, 12 (2010),
1336–1341.

124. Zhang, K.Z., Zhao, S.J., Cheung, C.M., and Lee, M.K. Examining the influence of
online reviews on consumers’ decision-making: A heuristic–systematic model. Decision
Support Systems, 67(2014), 78–89.

125. Zhang, W., and Watts, S. Knowledge adoption in online communities of practice.
Systemes d’Information et Management, 9, 1 (2004), 81–102.

126. Zhang, W., and Watts, S.A. Capitalizing on content: Information adoption in two
online communities. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 9, 2 (2008), 73–94.

127. Zhou, S., and Guo, B. The order effect on online review helpfulness: A social influence
perspective. Decision Support Systems, 93(2017), 77–87.