Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
research-article

When Images Backfire: : The Effect of Customer-Generated Images on Product Rating Dynamics

Published: 01 December 2023 Publication History

Abstract

Customer-generated images (CGIs) are images posted by customers on e-commerce platforms, and they usually appear in the review sections together with review text and ratings provided by customers having purchase experiences. Despite their prevalent adoption by e-commerce platforms, the effect of CGIs on customers’ postpurchase satisfaction remains unclear. We find that CGIs lead to a decline in subsequent ratings compared with product ratings not exposed to CGIs. Furthermore, high CGI review ratings and high aesthetic quality exacerbate the negative effect, whereas reviewers’ face disclosure in CGIs can alleviate the negative effect. Through cross-product analyses, we find that the negative effect is more prominent for experience goods (e.g., women’s dresses) than for search goods (e.g., lightning cables). Results from a laboratory experiment show that participants experience significantly higher expectation and negative disconfirmation when reading CGI reviews with high ratings, whereas the uncertainty reduction effect is insignificant, which collectively explains the decline of subsequent product ratings from a theoretical perspective. These findings suggest that platforms and retailers should be aware of the potential negative effect of CGIs on the rating dynamics and take appropriate measures to circumvent it.

Abstract

Customer-generated images (CGIs) on e-commerce platforms have been widely adopted as a promotional tool to persuade customers into purchases. Despite their prevalent applications, the effect of CGIs on customer postpurchase satisfaction has not been extensively examined. This study postulates that CGIs could cause expectation disconfirmation and reduce product uncertainty for customers, therefore making their effect on subsequent product ratings complex. We leverage multiple methods and data sets to gain a better understanding of this problem and underlying mechanisms. We employ a difference-in-differences model to empirically test our hypotheses and find that CGIs lead to a decline in subsequent ratings compared with product ratings not exposed to CGIs. Further heterogeneity analyses demonstrate that high CGI review rating and high aesthetic quality exacerbate the negative effect, whereas reviewer face disclosure could alleviate the negative effect. Through cross-product analyses, we find that the negative effect is more prominent for experience goods (e.g., women’s dresses) than for search goods (e.g., lightning cables). Finally, the underlying mechanism is further validated through a laboratory experiment that shows participants experience significantly higher expectation and more negative disconfirmation in the CGI group with high review ratings, whereas uncertainty reduction effect is insignificant, which collectively explains the decline of subsequent product ratings. These findings suggest that platforms and retailers should be aware of the potential negative effect of CGIs on the rating dynamics and take appropriate measures to circumvent it.
History: Ravi Bapna, Senior Editor; Gordon Burtch, Associate Editor.
Funding: This work was supported in part by National Science Foundation of China [Grants 72202220, 72172070, and 71729001].
Supplemental Material: The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2023.1201.

References

[1]
Anderson RE (1973) Consumer dissatisfaction: The effect of disconfirmed expectancy on perceived product performance. J. Marketing Res. 10(1):38–44.
[2]
Aydinoğlu NZ, Cian L (2014) Show me the product, show me the model: Effect of picture type on attitudes toward advertising. J. Consumer Psych. 24(4):506–519.
[3]
Bertrand M, Duflo E, Mullainathan S (2004) How much should we trust differences-in-differences estimates? Quart. J. Econom. 119(1):249–275.
[4]
Brynjolfsson E, Hui X, Liu M (2019) Does machine translation affect international trade? Evidence from a large digital platform. Management Sci. 65(12):5449–5460.
[5]
Chen P, Hitt LM, Hong Y, Wu S (2021) Measuring product type and purchase uncertainty with online product ratings: A theoretical model and empirical application. Inform. Systems Res. 32(4):1470–1489.
[6]
Chen Y, Xie J (2008) Online consumer review: Word-of-mouth as a new element of marketing communication mix. Management Sci. 54(3):477–491.
[7]
Chen‐Yu HJ, Kincade DH (2001) Effects of product image at three stages of the consumer decision process for apparel products: Alternative evaluation, purchase and post‐purchase. J. Fashion Marketing Management 5(1):29–43.
[8]
Childers TL, Houston MJ (1984) Conditions for a picture-superiority effect on consumer memory. J. Consumer Res. 11(2):643–654.
[9]
Cyr D, Head M, Larios H, Pan B (2009) Exploring human images in website design: A multi-method approach. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 33(3):539–566.
[10]
de Chaisemartin C, D’Haultfoeuille X (2020) Two-way fixed effects estimators with heterogeneous treatment effects. Amer. Econom. Rev. 110(9):2964–2996.
[11]
Deng Y, Loy CC, Tang X (2017) Image aesthetic assessment: An experimental survey. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine 34(4):80–106.
[12]
Deng Y, Zheng J, Khern-am-nuai W, Kannan KN (2021) More than the quantity: The value of editorial reviews for a UGC platform. Management Sci. 68(9):6865–6888.
[13]
Diehl K, Poynor C (2010) Great expectations?! Assortment size, expectations, and satisfaction. J. Marketing Res. 47(2):312–322.
[14]
Dimoka A, Hong Y, Pavlou PA (2012) On product uncertainty in online markets: Theory and evidence. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 36(2):395–426.
[15]
Forman C, Ghose A, Wiesenfeld B (2008) Examining the relationship between reviews and sales: The role of reviewer identity disclosure in electronic markets. Inform. Systems Res. 19(3):291–313.
[16]
Fornell C, Larcker DF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Marketing Res. 18(1):39–50.
[17]
Freeman M (2007) The Photographer’s Eye: Composition and Design for Better Digital Photos (Routledge, New York).
[18]
Godes D, Silva JC (2012) Sequential and temporal dynamics of online opinion. Marketing Sci. 31(3):448–473.
[19]
Goh KY, Heng CS, Lin Z (2013) Social media brand community and consumer behavior: Quantifying the relative impact of user- and marketer-generated content. Inform. Systems Res. 24(1):88–107.
[20]
Goodman-Bacon A (2021) Difference-in-differences with variation in treatment timing. J. Econometrics 225(2):254–277.
[21]
Hagtvedt H, Patrick VM (2008) Art infusion: The influence of visual art on the perception and evaluation of consumer products. J. Marketing Res. 45(3):379–389.
[22]
Ho YC, Wu J, Tan Y (2017) Disconfirmation effect on online rating behavior: A structural model. Inform. Systems Res. 28(3):626–642.
[23]
Hong W, Yu Z, Wu L, Pu X (2020) Influencing factors of the persuasiveness of online reviews considering persuasion methods. Electronic Commerce Res. Appl. 39:100912.
[24]
Hong Y, Pavlou PA (2014) Product fit uncertainty in online markets: Nature, effects, and antecedents. Inform. Systems Res. 25(2):328–344.
[25]
Howard AG, Zhu M, Chen B, Kalenichenko D, Wang W, Weyand T, Andreetto M, Adam H (2017) Mobilenets: Efficient convolutional neural networks for mobile vision applications. Preprint, submitted April 17, https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.04861.
[26]
Hu N, Pavlou PA, Zhang JJ (2017) On self-selection biases in online product reviews. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 41(2):449–471.
[27]
Huang N, Hong Y, Burtch G (2017) Social network integration and user content generation: Evidence from natural experiments. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 41(4):1035–1058.
[28]
Jiang Z, Wang W, Tan BC, Yu J (2016) The determinants and impacts of aesthetics in users’ first interaction with websites. J. Management Inform. Systems 33(1):229–259.
[29]
Karimi S, Wang F (2017) Online review helpfulness: Impact of reviewer profile image. Decision Support Systems 96:39–48.
[30]
Kim DJ, Ferrin DL, Rao HR (2009) Trust and satisfaction, two stepping stones for successful e-commerce relationships: A longitudinal exploration. Inform. Systems Res. 20(2):237–257.
[31]
Kisielius J, Sternthal B (1984) Detecting and explaining vividness effects in attitudinal judgments. J. Marketing Res. 21(1):54–64.
[32]
Lee YJ, Hosanagar K, Tan Y (2015) Do I follow my friends or the crowd? Information cascades in online movie ratings. Management Sci. 61(9):2241–2258.
[33]
Li H, Ji H, Liu H, Cai D, Gao H (2022) Is a picture worth a thousand words? Understanding the role of review photo sentiment and text-photo sentiment disparity using deep learning algorithms. Tourism Management 92:104559.
[34]
Li X, Hitt LM (2008) Self-selection and information role of online product reviews. Inform. Systems Res. 19(4):456–474.
[35]
Li Y, Xie Y (2020) Is a picture worth a thousand words? An empirical study of image content and social media engagement. J. Marketing Res. 57(1):1–19.
[36]
Lim KH, Benbasat I, Ward LM (2000) The role of multimedia in changing first impression bias. Inform. Systems Res. 11(2):115–136.
[37]
Lin C, Wei YH, Lekhawipat W (2018) Time effect of disconfirmation on online shopping. Behav. Inform. Tech. 37(1):87–101.
[38]
Lin Z, Heng CS (2015) The paradoxes of word of mouth in electronic commerce. J. Management Inform. Systems 32(4):246–284.
[39]
Lin Z, Zhang Y, Tan Y (2019) An empirical study of free product sampling and rating bias. Inform. Systems Res. 31(1):260–275.
[40]
Liu L, Dzyabura D, Mizik N (2020) Visual listening in: Extracting brand image portrayed on social media. Marketing Sci. 39(4):669–686.
[41]
Liu Y, Du R (2020) Examining the effect of reviewer socioeconomic status disclosure on customers’ purchase intention. J. Global Inform. Systems Management 28(3):17–35.
[42]
Luo J, Ba S, Zhang H (2012) The effectiveness of online shopping characteristics and well-designed websites on satisfaction. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 36(4):1131–1144.
[43]
Ma Y, Xiang Z, Du Q, Fan W (2018) Effects of user-provided photos on hotel review helpfulness: An analytical approach with deep learning. Internat. J. Hospitality Management 71:120–131.
[44]
Moe WW, Trusov M (2011) The value of social dynamics in online product ratings forums. J. Marketing Res. 48(3):444–456.
[45]
Muchnik L, Aral S, Taylor SJ (2013) Social influence bias: A randomized experiment. Sci. 341(6146):647–651.
[46]
Mudambi SM, Schuff D (2010) Research note: What makes a helpful online review? A study of customer reviews on Amazon.com. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 34(1):185–200.
[47]
Oliver RL (1977) Effect of expectation and disconfirmation on postexposure product evaluations: An alternative interpretation. J. Appl. Psych. 62(4):480–486.
[48]
Oliver RL (1980) A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. J. Marketing Res. 17(4):460–469.
[49]
Peracchio LA, Meyers-Levy J (2005) Using stylistic properties of ad pictures to communicate with consumers. J. Consumer Res. 32(1):29–40.
[50]
Qiao D, Lee SY, Whinston AB, Wei Q (2020) Financial incentives dampen altruism in online prosocial contributions: A study of online reviews. Inform. Systems Res. 31(4):1361–1375.
[51]
Rishika R, Ramaprasad J (2019) The effects of asymmetric social ties, structural embeddedness, and tie strength on online content contribution behavior. Management Sci. 65(7):3398–3422.
[52]
Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB (1983) The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70(1):41–55.
[53]
Shen W, Hu Y, Ulmer JR (2015) Competing for attention: An empirical study of online reviewers’ strategic behavior. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 39(3):683–696.
[54]
Shin D, He S, Lee GM, Whinston AB, Cetintas S, Lee KC (2020) Enhancing social media analysis with visual data analytics: A deep learning approach. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 44(4):1459–1492.
[55]
So H, Oh W (2018) Picture perfect: An image mining of advertising content and its effects on social targeting. Proc. 39th Internat. Conf. Inform. Systems (Association for Information Systems, Atlanta), 1–17.
[56]
Somerfield K, Mortimer K, Evans G (2018) The relevance of images in user-generated content: A mixed method study of when, and why, major brands retweet. Internat. J. Internet Marketing Advertising 12(4):340–357.
[57]
Sunder S, Kim KH, Yorkston EA (2019) What drives herding behavior in online ratings? The role of rater experience, product portfolio, and diverging opinions. J. Marketing 83(6):93–112.
[58]
Sung Y, Lee JA, Kim E, Choi SM (2016) Why we post selfies: Understanding motivations for posting pictures of oneself. Personality Individual Diffferences 97:260–265.
[59]
Talebi H, Milanfar P (2018) NIMA: Neural image assessment. IEEE Trans. Image Processing 27(8):3998–4011.
[60]
Tian X, Dong Z, Yang K, Mei T (2015) Query-dependent aesthetic model with deep learning for photo quality assessment. IEEE Trans. Multimedia 17(11):2035–2048.
[61]
Truong QT, Lauw HW (2017) Visual sentiment analysis for review images with item-oriented and user-oriented CNN. Proc. 25th ACM Internat. Conf. Multimedia (ACM, New York), 1274–1282.
[62]
Unnava HR, Burnkrant RE (1991) An imagery-processing view of the role of pictures in print advertisements. J. Marketing Res. 28(2):226–231.
[63]
Wang A, Zhang M, Hann IH (2018) Socially nudged: A quasi-experimental study of friends’ social influence in online product ratings. Inform. Systems Res. 29(3):641–655.
[64]
Wang M, Li X, Chau PYK (2021) Leveraging image-processing techniques for empirical research: Feasibility and reliability in online shopping context. Inform. Systems Frontiers 23(3):607–626.
[65]
Wang M, Li X, Chau PYK (2016) The impact of photo aesthetics on online consumer shopping behavior: An image processing-enabled empirical study. Proc. 37th Internat. Conf. Inform. Systems (Association for Information Systems, Atlanta), 1–11.
[66]
Wheeler L, Martin R, Suls J (1997) The proxy model of social comparison for self-assessment of ability. Personality Soc. Psych. Rev. 1(1):54–61.
[67]
Wolfers J (2006) Did unilateral divorce laws raise divorce rates? A reconciliation and new results. Amer. Econom. Rev. 96(5):1802–1820.
[68]
Xu Q (2014) Should I trust him? The effects of reviewer profile characteristics on eWOM credibility. Comput. Human Behav. 33:136–144.
[69]
You Y, Vadakkepatt GG, Joshi AM (2015) A meta-analysis of electronic word-of-mouth elasticity. J. Marketing 79(2):19–39.
[70]
Zinko R, Stolk P, Furner Z, Almond B (2020) A picture is worth a thousand words: How images influence information quality and information load in online reviews. Electronic Marketing 30:775–789.
[71]
Zhang K, Zhang Z, Li Z, Qiao Y (2016) Joint face detection and alignment using multitask cascaded convolutional networks. IEEE Signal Processing Lett. 23(10):1499–1503.
[72]
Zhang S, Lee D, Singh PV, Srinivasan K (2021) What makes a good image? Airbnb demand analytics leveraging interpretable image features. Management Sci. 68(8):5644–5666.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)On Crafting Effective Theoretical Contributions for Empirical Papers in Economics of Information SystemsInformation Systems Research10.1287/isre.2024.editorial.v35.n335:3(917-935)Online publication date: 1-Sep-2024
  • (2024)Improving answer quality using image-text coherence on social Q&A sitesDecision Support Systems10.1016/j.dss.2024.114191180:COnline publication date: 9-Jul-2024

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Information Systems Research
Information Systems Research  Volume 34, Issue 4
December 2023
502 pages
ISSN:1526-5536
DOI:10.1287/isre.2023.34.issue-4
Issue’s Table of Contents

Publisher

INFORMS

Linthicum, MD, United States

Publication History

Published: 01 December 2023
Accepted: 03 December 2022
Received: 02 July 2020

Author Tags

  1. customer-generated images
  2. rating dynamics
  3. uncertainty reduction
  4. expectation disconfirmation
  5. reviewer subjectivity

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)0
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 13 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)On Crafting Effective Theoretical Contributions for Empirical Papers in Economics of Information SystemsInformation Systems Research10.1287/isre.2024.editorial.v35.n335:3(917-935)Online publication date: 1-Sep-2024
  • (2024)Improving answer quality using image-text coherence on social Q&A sitesDecision Support Systems10.1016/j.dss.2024.114191180:COnline publication date: 9-Jul-2024

View Options

View options

Get Access

Login options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media