1. Introduction
One of the most challenging issues online travel agencies are facing is how to build an effective review system to promote hotel sales. The review system acts like an electronic knowledge repository by which early adopters contribute information to populate the system, and consumers seek knowledge from the system for reuse. To overcome the difficulty of information overload, picture reviews are deployed to make it easier and quicker to access valuable information [
1]. Its emergence provides scholars with a new orientation to examine word of mouth, which is recognized as the most important driver of sales, and to obtain a deeper understanding of consumer review posting behaviors [
2]. Our work aims at investigating how different types of reviews affect the perceived usefulness of review readers and whether there is a significant difference in perceived costs between different types of review posting behaviors.
Some research suggests that the dynamics of pictures implemented in the review system facilitate the delivery of product information. First, visual information greatly affects people’s memory compared with text information. The information presented by the image stimulates more cognitive elaboration, which leads to the development of more storage locations and paths in the memory and, in turn, increases the likelihood of retrieving the information in later recall tasks [
3]. As suggested by Mitchell and Olson, when an advertising message contains a picture, as consumer reviews do, users can better remember and recognize the relevant information [
4]. Second, previous research suggests that people have different abilities to understand visual reviews and text reviews because reading words usually takes more time and effort than pictures [
5]. No matter what types of products, consumers are more likely to pay attention through the presentation of pictures, which improve their cognitive ability, because an individual’s perception of pictures is physically similar to the real objects [
6]. They are able to imagine that the objects in the pictures seem to be “here” and “now”, which will generate a relatively close sense of psychological distance and reduce consumers’ perceived risk [
5,
7]. In sum, pictures are often better at deepening consumers’ understanding of a hotel’s profile than text and therefore enhancing review information delivery. Moreover, pictures with high definition provide a visually appealing experience for consumers, helping them quickly gain more information and details about the product and speed up the decision-making process. We therefore believe that the quality of pictures has an impact on the usefulness of reviews.
However, review systems deploying the form of picture reviews still do not guarantee the success of information delivery, which requires that (1) information contributors (review posters) be willing to part with their information and (2) information seekers (review readers) be willing to reuse the codified information [
8]. This is because review posters always make a trade-off between effort and accuracy in the process of parting with knowledge, according to the social exchange theory [
9,
10]. Although picture reviews accrue higher accuracy, a corresponding effort is needed. So, we propose that consumers will choose different review posting strategies to balance these two factors. Further, effort performs asymmetrically in positive reviews and negative reviews. Dissatisfied consumers tend to have higher perceived costs, which is the result of a detail-oriented system information processing to solve the problem caused by negative emotions [
11]. So, we further expect that unsatisfied customers tend to choose text reviews to reduce their effort. However, it is far from being enough to consider only the perspective of review posters. The system is efficient only if the review readers consider the dominant form of review (i.e., the reviewing manner chosen by the majority of review posters) to be more useful. Otherwise, most review posters are making vain attempts to deliver information to review readers, and consequently, the review system is collectively ineffective. Therefore, we shed light on the usefulness of the types of reviews, which should be defined in our work as the capability of a reviewing form that is helpful for the decision-making process, rather than the ability to promote sales. Usefulness is an important indicator to value whether a review is helpful to the process of making purchasing decisions and thus implicating the success of information delivery. To the best of our knowledge, no research draws attention to the review posters and review readers simultaneously to explore the effectiveness of review information delivery. This is surprising because the failure of review information delivery generates mismatched product–consumer tuples, which will bring undesirable hotel ratings and unhealthy social well-being. To address the gap, the aim of this work is to examine how review posters choose different reviewing strategies (picture versus text) to change their perceived costs and which type of review is more useful to review readers. We also shed new light on the difference in review posting intention between negative reviews and positive reviews. As a result, we can figure out whether the review system is effective in terms of the emergence of picture reviews.
Our research questions are: what types of reviews do review readers consider more useful? What types of review posting requires more perceived costs for review posters? Is there any difference in the perceived costs between positive consumers and negative reviewers? To answer these questions, we first develop our hypotheses that picture reviews, especially high-quality pictures, possess higher usefulness for consumers by reviewing previous research. Next, building on the cost–benefit trade-off in the social exchange theory, we argue that people will tend to choose text review because it requires lower perceived costs than picture reviews. Since consumers with negative product experiences are more likely to be burdened with psychological costs, the text advantage effect is more significant for them, so they are more likely to choose text reviews than positive consumers. Further, as high-quality pictures bring higher accuracy and usefulness and hence require higher costs, we put forward that negative review posters post pictures of lower quality. Although the social exchange theory has been extensively emphasized in the consumer behavior domain [
12,
13,
14,
15], less is known about whether it affects the type-of-review selection. Next, to validate our hypotheses, we use actual online hotel review data and consumer rating data from
Ctrip.com (accessed on 13 July 2022) to empirically examine whether and to what extent the perceived costs affect consumers’ intention of posting different types of reviews.
Our main results are as follows. We first confirm the higher usefulness of picture reviews, especially high-quality pictures, for review readers, and review posters’ unwillingness to adopt picture reviews. Additionally, we then further show that negative review posters endure greater unwillingness than positive review posters because of the higher perceived costs. Additionally, the quality of the pictures taken by negative review posters is significantly lower than that of positive review posters. Our empirical and analytical findings are expected to make theoretical and practical contributions. This work will further our knowledge regarding how perceived costs affect review posting behaviors, especially the reviewing strategy choice. In particular, these are important because they broaden the nature and scope of outcomes studied in e-commerce studies. Our work can guide review system implementation in e-commerce and provide insight into consumer review posting behavior, which is potentially helpful for online travel agencies to design review services to facilitate information delivery. This is also useful for hotels that are trying to seize the opportunity from the market and improve hotel quality by receiving feedback.
3. Hypotheses’ Development
In the information proactively published by consumers, different forms of presentation have a different impact on consumers. Relevant studies have proved that when the information left by users contains pictures, the usefulness of this online review will be greater than a pure text review [
44,
45]. Additionally, there is literature suggesting that the spread speed and coverage of visual reviews posted by consumers on the internet will be faster and wider than online comments without pictures or videos [
46,
47] because, for consumers, it usually takes more time and energy to read text reviews than visual reviews. Visual reviews can show the product’s spatial, motion and tactile information clues, which is appropriate for most consumers. The degree of reliability is also stronger than in other forms of online reviews [
48]. In sum, picture reviews are superior to text reviews in the following aspects. First, individuals can simultaneously recognize and interpret picture information across the two cognitive systems of text and vision, which will lead to the “picture advantage effect”, thus enabling individuals to understand picture information more fully and remember it more deeply [
49]. Second, online reviews attached with pictures illustrate detailed product information beyond what can be explained by plain words [
1]. Third, since pictures are less likely to be fake, it greatly enhances the authenticity and credibility of the reviews and thus reduces consumers’ perceived risk and psychological distance [
7]. So, consumers often trust pictures more and make purchasing decisions dependent on picture reviews. To sum up, the nature of picture reviews is superior to text reviews in conveying as much useful information as possible. Therefore, we put forward the first hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1 (H1). Picture reviews are more useful for review readers than text reviews.
While images may increase the credibility of a comment compared to text, the quality of the image can also have an impact on its usefulness. For example, some websites and web pages are aesthetically pleasing and place great importance on color distribution. The mood and behavior of the viewer as well as the experience can be significantly influenced by the appearance of the page. For comments, however, comment readers are more interested in how well the image matches reality than in the photography skills of the comment publisher. They prefer to see high-quality images that are clear and informative. We therefore propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2 (H2). High-quality pictures are more useful for review readers.
Unfortunately, while review readers prefer to see picture reviews, posting picture reviews is more difficult than posting text reviews. Consistent with the higher benefit that pictures can bring—for example, pictures have higher accuracy in showing what words cannot [
50]—more time and effort required to codify and input knowledge into picture reviews can act as opportunity costs. Specifically, in addition to writing explanatory words, review posters have to take pictures from appropriate angles, edit the pictures and upload these files onto the review forum. Therefore, choosing a reviewing strategy must weigh the benefit against the cost, according to the social exchange theory. However, the effort may typically be weighted more heavily than the accuracy because the feedback on effort expenditure is relatively immediate, while the feedback on accuracy is subject to both delay and ambiguity [
51]. So, we argue that consumers will tend to choose the reviewing strategy requiring the least amount of effort while giving up accuracy. From the above statements, we put forward the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3 (H3). Posting picture reviews requires more perceived costs than posting text reviews.
Bad experiences can trigger negative emotions in the body, leading to anxiety and irritability. This emotional state tends to reduce human action and increase the difficulty of completing tasks. Negative emotions can also distract attention and interfere with the ability to grasp information and the behavior the body wants to perform. Dissatisfied consumers tend to have higher perceived costs, which is the result of detail-oriented system information processing to solve the problem caused by negative emotions [
11,
32]. Dissatisfied consumers often need to recall all kinds of details and unhappiness during their stay in order to retaliate against the hotel and vent their emotions when writing reviews. They have more information to process than satisfied consumers, and the anger of recalling an unpleasant experience discourages review writing. To reduce the cost to themselves, they often need to choose an easier way to comment. Posting a picture requires taking a picture, selecting a picture from a phone and uploading it, which is more difficult than posting a text review, so we suggest that dissatisfied consumers are less likely to post a picture review. Further, dissatisfied consumers often do not write comments until after checking out for fear of retribution. Additionally, when they check out, they may not be able to take pictures of the room and provide evidence of a bad stay, so they may give up on writing picture reviews. We therefore propose that they show a higher probability to choose a reviewing strategy that can reduce costs. We hypothesize:
Hypothesis 4 (H4). Negative review posters are less willing to post picture reviews than positive review posters.
Similarly, because negative review posters are under psychological pressure in recalling the experience, they will have less energy to shoot and post high-quality images. Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 5 (H5). Negative review posters post pictures of lower quality.
Our hypotheses are logically related and self-contained. Generalizing from a more understandable language, people prefer to read reviews with pictures (H1) and prefer to see high-quality pictures (H2). However, consumers, especially those with negative experiences, do not like to post images because it requires higher perceived costs (H3, H4). Additionally, the consumers’ experience is positively related to the quality of the pictures they post (H5).
7. Conclusions
Given the importance of user-generated pictures, using such content to enhance consumer engagement is critical for e-commerce. Consumers are involved in reviews in two main capacities: as review readers and review publishers. If review posters deliver exactly the information that review readers expect to see (or that is useful), then the messaging on the platform is efficient, which can accelerate the review adoption and purchase decision process for consumers. Review messages can be delivered as text and pictures. In recent years, a number of scholars have studied the usefulness of review text length, the sentiment expressed in the text, etc., for consumers of different product categories. However, very few have compared the usefulness of different types of reviews. Some scholars have also disputed the advantages and disadvantages of both text reviews and picture reviews. Therefore, this paper empirically investigates the first research question: which is more useful to review readers—pictures or text? Since the quality of pictures makes a difference in the experience of review reading, and few studies have discussed in depth the usefulness of review pictures, we ask the second question in this paper: do higher-quality review pictures have a significant impact on the usefulness of reviews? We believe that the process of information transfer does not only depend on the characteristics of the receiver of the information, but the willingness of the publisher is also very important. Therefore, we further investigate the aspects of review posters, according to the social exchange theory. We believe that posting pictures conveys more accurate information than posting text, but it also requires more effort from the review posters. We therefore put forward the third research question: does posting pictures require more perceived costs than posting text? Based on previous research on the emotional impact of negative consumers, which results in more effort being required for reviewing, we propose the fourth research question: are consumers with negative experiences more reluctant to post picture reviews? Since the perceived costs of taking high-quality images are higher, we then ask the fifth research question: do high-rated reviewers post higher-quality images (because of the low perceived costs of positive review posters)?
We verify five hypotheses corresponding to the research questions by means of data analysis and experiments. First, we crawled hotel data and reviewed data from
Ctrip.com (accessed on 13 July 2022), a popular travel website. A preliminary observation and comparison were made on reviewers’ attitudes (positive versus negative) and the types of reviews (picture versus text), and then, the data were grouped for the regression model test. In Test 2, in order to ensure robustness, we regarded reviews with scores of less than 5 and 3 as negative reviews, respectively, and conducted two tests. The Experiment section was divided into A and B. Experiment A continuously scaled the variable “review usefulness” and evaluated the impact of the review type on it. Experiment B asked participants to write positive and negative reviews and evaluated the perceived cost they incurred using a scale, so as to investigate whether the attitude of participants will affect the type of comments they post and the perceived cost.
Our research results are as follows. First, we present evidence that consumers find picture reviews more useful when reading online reviews and that they prefer high-quality pictures. High-quality picture refers to the fact that the review publisher accurately focuses on the sharpness to improve clarity when taking a picture. This result suggests that this visual form of review reference can be a good aid for consumer decision making and has high commercial value. Second, we find that review publishers are more reluctant in choosing picture reviews than text reviews, and this reluctance is more pronounced in the case of negative reviews. This is because posting images is a more tedious step than posting text and requires more effort. Third, we also find that high-quality pictures are less likely to appear in negative reviews. This is also due to the fact that high-quality images require more effort to capture the focusing process than low-resolution images, and consumers with bad experiences are more reluctant to put so much effort into the posting process. The above results show that pictures, especially high-quality pictures, can improve the efficiency of people’s purchasing decisions, so this form of review is very important for e-commerce platforms. However, the perceived cost greatly reduces the previous adopters’ willingness to post images, resulting in a mismatch between the actual comments and what the review readers want to see. This “non-conformity” is even more pronounced in negative reviews, as the recall of a bad experience when writing a review brings psychological pressure and irritation to the review posters who have higher perceived costs compared to consumers with positive reviews and are less likely to post image reviews and high-quality images. Therefore, we need to pay attention not only to the asymmetry between the expectations of information deliverers and information recipients in the review system but also to the extent to which the attitudes of information deliverers can affect this asymmetry.
Author Contributions
H.L., supervision, conceptualization, funding acquisition, methodology, validation, writing—review and editing; W.Z., conceptualization, methodology, software, validation, investigation, resources, data curation, writing—original draft preparation; W.S., investigation, data curation, writing—original draft preparation; X.H., data curation, investigation, software, formal analysis. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This work was supported by the Discipline Co-construction Project for Philosophy and Social Science in Guangdong Province (No. GD20XGL03), the Universities Stability Support Program in Shenzhen (No. 20200813151607001), the Major Planned Project for Education Science in Shenzhen (No. zdfz20017), the Postgraduate Education Reform Project in Shenzhen University in 2019, and the Postgraduate Innovation and Development Fund Project in Shenzhen University (No. 315-0000470708).
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- Wang, J.X. Research on Influencing Factors of Online Shopping Consumers’ Willingness to Publish Comments with Pictures. Master’s Thesis, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Radnor, M.; Feller, I.; Rogers, E. The Diffusion of Innovations: An Assessment; Center for the Interdisciplinary Study of Science and Technology, Northwestern University: California, CA, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
- Kisielius, J.; Sternthal, B. Detecting and explaining vividness effects in attitudinal judgments. J. Mark. Res. 1984, 21, 54–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mitchell, A.A.; Olson, J.C. Are product attribute beliefs the only mediator of advertising effects on brand attitude? J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 318–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goolkasian, P. Research in Visual Pattern Recognition: The Enduring Legacy of Studies From the 1960s. Am. J. Psychol. 2012, 125, 155–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hoffman, D.L.; Novak, T.P. Toward a Deeper Understanding of Social Media. J. Interact. Mark. 2012, 26, 69–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Glaser, W.R. Picture Naming. Cognition 1992, 42, 61–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kankanhalli, A.; Tan, B.C.; Wei, K.-K. Understanding seeking from electronic knowledge repositories: An empirical study. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2005, 56, 1156–1166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Payne, J.W. Task complexity and contingent processing in decision making: An information search and protocol analysis. Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform. 1976, 16, 366–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beach, L.R.; Mitchell, T.R. A contingency model for the selection of decision strategies. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1978, 3, 439–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schwarz, N. Feelings as information: Informational and motivational functions of affective states. In Handbook of Motivation and Cognition: Foundations of Social Behavior; Higgins, E.T., Sorrentino, R.M., Eds.; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 1990; Volume 2, pp. 527–561. [Google Scholar]
- Fradkin, A.; Grewal, E.; Holtz, D.; Pearson, A. Bias and Reciprocity in Online Reviews: Evidence from Field Experiments on Airbnb. In Proceedings of the 16th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, Portland, OR, USA, 15–19 June 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, Y.; Harper, F.M.; Konstan, J.; Li, S.X. Social Comparisons and Contributions to Online Communities: A Field Experiment on MovieLens. Am. Econ. Rev. 2010, 100, 1358–1398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cabral, L.; Li, L. A Dollar for Your Thoughts: Feedback-Conditional Rebates on eBay. Manag. Sci. 2015, 61, 2052–2063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Burtch, G.; Hong, Y.; Bapna, R.; Griskevicius, V. Stimulating Online Reviews by Combining Financial Incentives and Social Norms. Manag. Sci. 2018, 64, 2065–2082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mudambi, S.M.; Schuff, D. Research Note: What Makes a Helpful Online Review? A Study of Customer Reviews on Amazon.com. MIS Q. 2010, 34, 185–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tirunillai, S.; Tellis, G. Mining Marketing Meaning from Online Chatter: Strategic Brand Analysis of Big Data Using Latent Dirichlet Allocation. J. Mark. Res. 2014, 51, 463–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hsu, C.-L.; Yu, L.-C.; Chang, K.-C. Exploring the effects of online customer reviews, regulatory focus, and product type on purchase intention: Perceived justice as a moderator. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017, 69, 335–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marlow, N.; Jansson-Boyd, C.V. To touch or not to touch; that is the question. Should consumers always be encouraged to touch products, and does it always alter product perception? Psychol. Mark. 2011, 28, 256–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, X.; Zhang, J.; Peracchio, L.A. Understanding the impact of self-concept on the stylistic properties of images. J. Consum. Psychol. 2010, 20, 508–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- An, Q.; Ma, Y.; Du, Q.; Xiang, Z.; Fan, W. Role of user-generated photos in online hotel reviews: An analytical approach. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2020, 45, 633–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, Y.-H.; Ho, H.-Y. Social influence’s impact on reader perceptions of online reviews. J. Bus. Res. 2015, 68, 883–887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, S.; Choeh, J.Y. The interactive impact of online word-of-mouth and review helpfulness on box office revenue. Manag. Decis. 2018, 56, 849–866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, Y.; Xiang, Z.; Du, Q.; Fan, W. Effects of user-provided photos on hotel review helpfulness: An analytical approach with deep leaning. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2018, 71, 120–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, M.; Lennon, S. The effects of visual and verbal information on attitudes and purchase intentions in internet shopping. Psychol. Mark. 2008, 25, 146–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karimi, S.; Wang, F. Online review helpfulness: Impact of reviewer profile image. Decis. Support Syst. 2017, 96, 39–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rarcherla, P.; Friske, W. Perceived ‘usefulness’ of online consumer reviews: An exploratory investigation across three services categories. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 2012, 11, 548–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Z.; Park, S. What makes a useful online review? Implication for travel product websites. Tour. Manag. 2015, 47, 140–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Leung, D. Unraveling the interplay of review depth, review breadth, and review language style on review usefulness and review adoption. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2021, 97, 102989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, C.C.; Chen, X.; Zhu, W.L.; Fu, W.Z.; Jin, J. Eye-tracking study on the impact of photographic reviews and verbal reviews on consumers’ perceived usefulness. Inf. Stud. Theory Appl. 2020, 43, 7–17. [Google Scholar]
- Dichter, E. Getting Motivated by Ernest Dichter, 1st ed.; Pergamon: Oxford, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, J.M.; Han, J.; Jun, M. Differences in mobile and nonmobile reviews: The role of perceived costs in review-posting. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 2020, 24, 450–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, I.-L.; Chuang, C.-H.; Hsu, C.-H. Information sharing and collaborative behaviors in enabling supply chain performance: A social exchange perspective. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2014, 148, 122–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y. Information adoption model, a review of the literature. J. Econ. Bus. Manag. 2016, 4, 618–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Molm, L. Theories of social exchange and exchange networks. In Handbook of Social Theory; Smart, B., Ritzer, G., Eds.; SAGE Publications: Thousands Oak, CA, USA, 2001; pp. 260–272. [Google Scholar]
- Liang, T.-P.; Liu, C.-C.; Wu, C.-H. Can Social Exchange Theory Explain Individual Knowledge-Sharing Behavior? A Meta-Analysis. In Proceedings of the ICIS 2008, Paris, France, 14–17 December 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, M.K.O.; Cheung, C.M.K.; Lim, K.H.; Sia, C.L. Understanding customer knowledge sharing in web-based discussion boards: An exploratory study. Internet Res. 2006, 16, 289–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shugan, S.M. The cost of thinking. J. Consum. Res. 1980, 7, 99–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Russo, J.; Johnson, E.; Stephens, D. The validity of verbal protocols. Mem. Cogn. 1989, 17, 759–769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Christensen-Szalanski, J.J.J. Problem solving strategies: A selection mechanism, some implications, and some data. Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform. 1978, 22, 307–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hambal, A.M.; Pei, Z.; Ishabailu, F.L. Image noise reduction and filtering techniques. Int. J. Sci. Res. 2017, 6, 2033–2038. [Google Scholar]
- Yu, S.; Wu, S.; Wang, L.; Jiang, F.; Xie, Y.; Li, L. A shallow convolutional neural network for blind image sharpness assessment. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0176632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jian, F.R. Method of Deblurring Microscope Image; Harbin University of Science and Technology: Harbin, China, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Min, Q.; Qin, L.; Zhang, K. Factors affecting the perceived usefulness of online reviews. Chin. Manag. Rev. 2017, 29, 95–107. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, Y.; Li, Z.; Zhao, Y. How the information quality affects the online review usefulness—An empirical analysis based on Taobao review data. Chin. J. Manag. 2017, 14, 77–85. [Google Scholar]
- Lin, S.; Lv, X.; Song, H. Is a picture worth a thousand words? The effect of pictorial reviews and verbal reviews on consumer purchase intention. J. Bus. Econ. 2017, 8, 59–68. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, X.H.; Chen, X. Fit of graph and text in user-generated contents and its effect on the perceived usefulness for consumers. Chin. J. Manag. Sci. 2018, 31, 101–115. [Google Scholar]
- Ert, E.; Fleischer, A.; Magen, N. Trust and reputation in the sharing economy: The role of personal photos in Airbnb. Tour. Manag. 2016, 55, 62–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paivio, A.; Csapo, K. Picture superiority in free recall: Imagery or dual coding? Cogn. Psychol. 1973, 5, 176–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amit, E.; Algom, D.; Trope, Y. Distance-dependent processing of pictures and words. J. Exp. Psychol. 2009, 138, 400–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Einhorn, H.; Hogarth, R. Confidence in Judgment—Persistence of the illusion of validity. Psychol. Rev. 1978, 85, 395–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deng, P. Research on the Influence of Online Comment Type on Consumers’ Purchase Intention. Master’s Thesis, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Xi’an, China, 10 June 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Pan, L.; Chiou, J. How much can you trust online information? Cues for perceived trustworthiness of consumer-generated online information. J. Interact. Mark. 2011, 25, 67–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laroche, M.; Yang, Z.; Mcdougall, G.; Bergeron, J. Internet versus bricks-and-mortar retailers: An investigation into intangibility and its consequences. J. Retail. 2005, 81, 251–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1.
Screenshot of a hotel homepage from
Ctrip.com (accessed on 13 July 2022).
Figure 2.
Screenshot of a text review.
Figure 3.
Screenshot of a picture review.
Figure 4.
Distribution of quality of pictures.
Figure 5.
The relationship between review scores and the quality of pictures.
Table 1.
Variables defined for each hypothesis.
Hypothesis | Independent Variable | Dependent Variable |
---|
H1 | Type of review (picture versus text) | Review usefulness |
H2 | Quality of pictures (continuous variable) |
H3 | Type of review (picture versus text) | Perceived costs |
H4 | Type of review posters (positive versus negative) | Type of review |
H5 | Review score (discrete variable) | Quality of pictures |
Table 2.
Distribution of customer review scores.
Variables | N |
---|
Number of customer reviews | 205,090 |
Mean of customer review scores | 4.68 |
25th percentile score | 5 |
50th percentile score | 5 |
75th percentile score | 5 |
Min score | 1 |
Max score | 5 |
Table 3.
Distribution of review scores.
Review Score | N | Percentage | Cumulative Percentage |
---|
R.S. 1 ≤ 3.0 | 12,785 | 6.23% | 6.23% |
3.0 < R.S. ≤ 4.0 | 21,413 | 10.44% | 16.67% |
4.0 < R.S. < 5.0 | 12,011 | 5.86% | 22.53% |
5.0 = R.S. | 158,881 | 77.47% | 100% |
Total | 205,090 | 100% | |
Table 4.
Distribution of review scores.
Variables | N Picture Reviews (9.34%) | Percentage Text Reviews (90.66%) | Total (100%) |
---|
Usefulness | 2725 (14.23%) | 4596 (2.47%) | 7321 |
Non-usefulness | 16,422 (85.77%) | 181,347 (97.53%) | 197,769 |
| 19,147 (100%) | 185,943 (100%) | 205.090 |
Table 5.
Distribution of different types of reviews.
Review Score | Picture Reviews (9.34%) | Text Reviews (90.66%) |
---|
R.S. ≤ 3.0 | 993 (5.19%) | 11,792 (6.34%) |
3.0 < R.S. ≤ 4.0 | 1241 (6.48%) | 20,172 (10.85%) |
4.0 < R.S. < 5.0 | 1227 (6.41%) | 10,784 (5.80%) |
5.0 = R.S. | 15,686 (81.92%) | 143,195 (77.01%) |
Total | 19,147 (100%) | 185,943 (100%) |
Table 6.
Type of review—Usefulness.
(x 1, y 2) | Picture Reviews | Text Reviews |
---|
Useful | (1, 1) | (0, 1) |
Non-useful | (1, 0) | (0, 0) |
Table 7.
Result of Test 1.
| Coefficient | Standardized Coefficient | t | Significance |
---|
B | SE | Beta |
---|
1 | (constant) | 0.025 | 0.000 | | 58.350 | 0.000 |
Type of Review a | 0.118 | 0.001 | 0.184 | 84.972 | 0.000 |
Table 8.
Type of review—Review score 1.
(x 1, y 2) | Picture Reviews | Text Reviews |
---|
Negative (R.S. ≤ 3) | (1, 1) | (0, 1) |
Others (3 < R.S. ≤ 5) | (1, 0) | (0, 0) |
Table 9.
Type of review—Review score 2.
(x 1, y 2) | Picture Reviews | Text Reviews |
---|
Positive (R.S. = 5) | (1, 1) | (0, 1) |
Others (1 < R.S. < 5) | (1, 0) | (0, 0) |
Table 10.
Type of review—Review score 2.
Dependent Variable | Negative Reviews (Main Test 1) | Positive Reviews (Main Test 2) |
---|
Type of Review (Picture = 1, Text = 0) | −0.014 *** (0.01) | 0.034 *** (0.01) |
Constant | Yes | Yes |
Standard Error | 0.002 | 0.003 |
Observations | 205,090 | 205,090 |
Table 11.
Results of Test 3.
| Coefficient | Standardized Coefficient | t | Significance |
---|
B | SE | Beta |
---|
1 | (constant) | −0.218 | 0.026 | | −8.295 | 0.000 |
Quality of Picture a | 0.048 | 0.003 | 0.099 | 13.782 | 0.000 |
Table 12.
Results of Test 4.
| Coefficient | Standardized Coefficient | t | Significance |
---|
B | SE | Beta |
---|
1 | (constant) | 7.201 | 0.036 | | 199.571 | 0.000 |
Review Score a | 0.074 | 0.008 | 0.071 | 9.862 | 0.000 |
Table 13.
Research variable measurement items.
Research Variable | Measurement Items | Reference Scale |
---|
perceived usefulness | These reviews provide me with helpful information about the hotel. | Kim et al. (2008) [25] Deng et al. (2020) [52] |
These reviews help me learn more about the hotel. |
perceived reliability | These reviews are reliable for me. |
These reviews are objective for me. |
These reviews are real for me. |
perceived persuasiveness | These reviews are convincing for me to trust the posters. |
These reviews are important when I book the hotel. |
Table 14.
Overall fitting degree of the model.
Model a,b | R | R2 | Adjusted R2 | F | Significance |
---|
1 | 0.285 a | 0.081 | 0.076 | 15.164 | 0.000 b |
Table 15.
Regression coefficients of Experiment A a.
| Coefficient | Standardized Coefficient | t | Significance |
---|
B | SE | Beta |
---|
1 | (constant) | 3.475 | 0.089 | | 38.824 | 0.000 |
picture review | 0.502 | 0.129 | 0.285 | 3.894 | 0.000 |
Table 16.
Regression coefficients1 of Experiment B a.
| Coefficient | Standardized Coefficient | t | Significance |
---|
B | SE | Beta |
---|
1 | (constant) | 0.411 | 0.046 | | 8.882 | 0.000 |
negative review | −0.239 | 0.066 | −0.262 | −3.591 | 0.000 |
Table 17.
Regression coefficients2 of Experiment B a.
| Coefficient | Standardized Coefficient | t | Significance |
---|
B | SE | Beta |
---|
1 | (constant) | 2.396 | 0.119 | | 20.067 | 0.000 |
positive picture review | 0.969 | 0.186 | 0.485 | 5.201 | 0.000 |
Table 18.
Regression coefficients3 of Experiment B a.
| Coefficient | Standardized Coefficient | t | Significance |
---|
B | SE | Beta |
---|
1 | (constant) | 3.507 | 0.093 | | 37.799 | 0.000 |
negative picture review | 1.760 | 0.223 | 0.650 | 7.876 | 0.000 |
Table 19.
Descriptive statistics of two groups.
| Sample | Mean | Standard Deviation | Mean Standard Error |
---|
Positive | 90 | 2.7944 | 0.98840 | 0.10419 |
Negative | 88 | 3.8103 | 1.02934 | 0.11036 |
Table 20.
Results of independent samples’ t-test.
t Statistic | Degree of Freedom | Significance | Difference of Mean | Difference in Standard Error | Difference (95% Significance) |
---|
Lower Limit | Upper Limit |
---|
−6.698 | 176 | 0.000 | −1.01590 | 0.15166 | −1.31522 | −0.71658 |
| Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).