632610

research-article2016
CQXXXX10.1177/1938965516632610Cornell Hospitality QuarterlyRose and Blodgett

Article
Cornell Hospitality Quarterly

Should Hotels Respond to Negative

2016, Vol. 57(4) 396­–410
© The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
Online Reviews? sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1938965516632610
cqx.sagepub.com

Mei Rose1 and Jeffrey G. Blodgett2

Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine whether it is beneficial for service providers, such as hotels and restaurants, to
respond to online negative reviews, and (a) whether company reputation is moderated by the number of negative versus
positive reviews and (b) whether the underlying issue is attributed to controllable versus uncontrollable factors. To test
the hypotheses, a 2 × 2 × 2 quasi-experimental design was utilized. Respondents were asked to imagine that they were
planning a trip to New York City, were searching online for a hotel near Times Square, and were provided with several
reviews. The results indicate, in general, that company reputation is adversely affected as the number of negative to positive
reviews becomes greater. When service failures pertain to controllable factors, management responses can mitigate the
adverse effects of negative reviews. When service failures stem from uncontrollable factors, company reputation is not
adversely affected, and thus a response from management might not be necessary. A follow-up study examined whether
the type of response matters. Findings revealed that an apology with assurance versus an apology with correction action
is equally effective.

Keywords
online reviews; service failure and recovery; reputation management

In today’s digital marketplace, consumers are constantly
connected to social media sites such as Twitter, Facebook,
Pinterest, Instagram, and YouTube. Using smartphones and
other mobile devices, customers post reviews and com-
ments about service providers—such as hotels, resorts, and
restaurants—often in “real time.” These firsthand reviews
are instantly available to a multitude of people, and have the
potential to significantly influence a company’s reputation
and consumers’ behavior. Positive reviews and comments
create trust (Sparks & Browning, 2011), and thus are highly
beneficial for marketers. In the hospitality industry, for
example, positive online reviews have been found to
increase hotels’ bookings (Torres, Singh, & Robertson-
Ring, 2015; Ye, Law, & Gu, 2009) and market share
(Duverger, 2013). Negative postings, however, can damage
a company’s reputation and adversely affect revenues
(Sparks & Browning, 2011; Vermeulen & Seegers, 2009).
Due to the rise in social media, marketers are becoming less
in control of brand information, with the “balance of power”
shifting to consumers (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004).
This phenomenon is of particular relevance to service pro-
viders, especially those in the hospitality industry whose
intangible offerings are difficult to judge beforehand. To
assess quality and reduce risk, many consumers utilize
online reviews (Kim, Mattila, & Baloglu, 2011; Xiang &
Gretzel, 2010). Multiple studies, for example, report that a
large percentage of consumers use online reviews when
booking hotels (Anderson, 2012; TripAdvisor, 2013; World
Travel Market, 2010).
One of the most powerful brand conversations is online
consumer reviews (eWOM), and not surprisingly, the num-
ber and types of review sites have exploded in recent years.
Some of the more popular general review sites are Yelp,
Google Plus, Local, and Foursquare. Review sites that are
industry-specific include TripAdvisor and VirtualTourist for
travel, Angie’s List and HomeAdvisor for home services,
Wellness and Doctoroogle for doctors and dentists,
DealRater and Edmunds for car dealers, and UrbanSpoon
and OpenTable for restaurants. Online reviews are generally
considered to be trustworthy (Sher & Lee, 2009; Sparks,
Perkins, & Buckley, 2013), coming from fellow consumers
with firsthand knowledge regarding a particular product or
service and who are voluntarily sharing their opinions and
commentary (Y. Chen, Yong, & Zhang, 2012). With an
abundance of unbiased and credible reviews readily avail-
able, a “new normal” has emerged. Equipped with smart-
phones and other electronic devices, and easy access to a
1
University of Alaska Anchorage, Anchorage, AK, USA
2
University of Houston-Victoria, Victoria, TX, USA
Corresponding Author:
Jeff Blodgett, School of Business Administration, University of Houston-
Victoria, 3007 N. Ben Wilson St, Victoria, TX 77901, USA.
Email: blodgettj@uhv.edu
Rose and Blodgett 397
multitude of social media sites, customers can retrieve online
reviews instantaneously before making most of their pur-
chases. For hotels and other hospitality providers, online
consumer reviews can be viewed as a valuable resource for
managing the firm’s reputation and for continual improve-
ment (Park & Allen, 2013). Recognizing the importance of
online reviews, some companies are proactively monitoring
online reviews by using free services such as Google Alert;
contracting “reputation management” services such as
Netvibes.com, Reputation.com, ReviewTrackers.com, and
Trackur.com; or establishing in-house monitoring divisions.
Prior research has investigated various factors pertaining
to online consumer reviews. Studies indicate that the impact
of negative online reviews is more pronounced for services,
such as hotels, when compared with tangible goods
(Christodoulides, Michaelidou, & Argyriou, 2012). Jiménez
and Mendoza (2013) found that online reviews are more
credible for search products when detailed information is
provided and when the level of reviewer agreement is high.
Negative reviews, in general, are perceived as more use-
ful (M. Lee, Rodgers, & Kim, 2009) and have greater impact
than positive reviews (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Finkenauer,
& Vohs, 2001; Sparks & Browning, 2011). Melián-González,
Bulchand-Gidumal, and López-Valcárcel (2013) found that
as the number of reviews of a particular hotel increased, its
ratings became more positive. Other research has found that
personal characteristics such as consumer confidence deter-
mine how online reviews are perceived (Lee & Ma, 2012),
and that women are more likely than men to seek online
reviews for risk reduction purposes (Kim et al., 2011).
A key issue for service providers is whether they should
respond to negative online reviews. There is little doubt that
many consumers take negative reviews into consideration
when making purchase decisions. Indeed, a 2011 Online
Influence Trend Tracker survey by Cone Communications
found that 80% of consumers reverse their purchase decisions
based on negative online reviews, and Öğüt and Taş (2012)
found that online reviews affect sales in the hotel industry.
Although a survey by TripAdvisor found that 57% of consum-
ers are more likely to book a hotel that has responded to online
reviews (eMarketer, 2013), Park and Allen (2013) reported
that few hotels actively respond to negative reviews. A study
by Market Metrix found that only 7% of negative reviews
actually get a response from hotels (Bly, 2010).
To date, few studies have assessed the effectiveness of
marketers’ responses to online reviews. Recently, Min, Lim,
and Magnini (2015) found that including an empathy state-
ment and paraphrasing the complaint improved the ratings of
the response. However, our knowledge is limited, and thus,
the purpose of this study is to further examine the effective-
ness of management responses to online consumer reviews.
More specifically, this study examines the effect of hotel man-
agement responses to negative online reviews on company
reputation and (a) whether the outcome is moderated by the
number of negative versus positive reviews, and (b) whether
Exhibit 1:
Conceptual Model.
a. A follow-up study was conducted to determine whether the type
of response matters, comparing an apology with assurance of future
satisfaction versus an apology with notification of corrective action.
the underlying issue is due to controllable or uncontrollable
factors (see Exhibit 1.) A second follow-up study was con-
ducted to determine whether the type of response (an apology
with assurance vs. an apology with corrective action) affects
company reputation. Given the ubiquity of online consumer
reviews, the results of this study should be of interest not only
to hotels but also to all hospitality and service providers.
Conceptual Framework and
Hypotheses
The conceptual framework for this study is based on
research regarding attribution theory, information and per-
suasion, service recovery, and company reputation. Findings
from previous studies provide the bases for the hypotheses.
Online reviews are useful because they help potential cus-
tomers assess the reputation of a company (Anderson, 2012),
and thus reduce risk (Kim et al., 2011; Litvin, Goldsmith, &
Pan, 2008; Xiang & Gretzel, 2010). Walsh and Beatty (2007)
defined reputation as “the customer’s overall evaluation of a
firm based on his or her reactions to the firm’s goods, services,
communication activities, interactions with the firm . . . and/or
known corporate activities” (p. 129). Two key dimensions of
reputation are capability and character (Rindova, Williamson,
Petkova, & Sever, 2005). Capability encompasses quality
and performance (Milgrom & Roberts, 1986). Management
responses can mitigate uncertainty about a firm’s capability,
thus reducing perceived risk (M. Chen, Su, & Tsai, 2007).
Character is based on a company’s past behavioral tendencies
and indicates how a firm will interact with others in the future
(Love & Kraatz, 2009). By responding to negative reviews, a
firm signals that it cares about its customers and will continue
to do so in the future, thus enhancing perceptions of its char-
acter. By demonstrating both capability and good character, a
firm can enhance its reputation.
Quantity and Valence of Reviews
Two factors that determine the impact of online reviews are
the quantity (Chintagunta, Gopinath, & Venkataraman,
398 Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 57(4)
2010) and valence of the postings (Blal & Sturman, 2014;
Pan & Zhang, 2011). Researchers have found that when a
large number of customers have posted reviews, individuals
are better able to assess the veracity of the information and
are more confident in their judgments (DeMaeyer, 2012;
Liu, 2006). The valence of reviews also affects consumers’
attitudes and perceptions (Sparks & Browning, 2011;
Vermeulen & Seegers, 2009). Negative information, in gen-
eral, is more persuasive than either neutral or positive infor-
mation (Herr, Kardes, & Kim, 1991; Park & Nicolau, 2015),
is more credible, and has greater impact than positive
reviews (Ahluwalia, 2002). This effect arises because nega-
tive information, in general, is scarcer than positive infor-
mation (Chiou & Cheng, 2003). Scarcity commands
attention and motivates consumers to read negative reviews
more thoroughly to resolve uncertainty. The result is that
people give greater weight to negative information when
making judgments (Maheswaran & Meyers-Levy, 1990).
The negativity effect becomes greater when the level of
reviewer agreement is high (Jiménez & Mendoza, 2013).
Consistent with previous research, Sparks and Browning
(2011) found that consumers who were searching for a hotel
were heavily influenced by negative information. Vermeulen
and Seegers (2009), however, noted that a single negative
review does little harm to a company’s reputation. The latter
finding is interesting and deserves greater attention. Additional
research is needed to address this issue and assess boundary
conditions. Accordingly, it is hypothesized as follows:
Hypothesis 1 (H1): Company reputation will become
less favorable as the number of negative reviews—
relative to the number of positive reviews—increases.
Attributions
Whether a negative review is harmful to a company’s reputa-
tion depends on the cause and conditions to which it is attrib-
uted (Weiner, 2000). Attributions are the causal explanations
that individuals use to interpret the environment around
them, especially when reacting to important, novel, unex-
pected, and negative events (Martinko, Harvey, & Douglas,
2007). When determining the cause of a particular event,
individuals take into consideration locus of control (internal
vs. external), stability (will the problem continue to occur),
and controllability (could the problem have been prevented).
Individuals also consider the consensus, consistency, and dis-
tinctiveness of the behavior or event (Kelley, 1973). Negative
reviews from multiple individuals indicate consensus,
whereas multiple reviews regarding the same issue indicate
consistency. In both situations, doubt is cast on a firm’s capa-
bilities or its character. Negative reviews that pertain to rou-
tine events (e.g., such as check-ins and hotel cleanliness) are
more damaging, whereas reviews that pertain to unusual cir-
cumstances (e.g., such as a weather-related power outage) are
distinctive and thus are more likely to be discounted.
In the case of service failures, a key issue is whether or
not the company could have prevented the failure (Folkes,
1984). Failure to prevent controllable service-related issues
is perceived as a sign of apathy or incompetence (Poon,
Hui, & Au, 2004) and results in negative consumer reac-
tions (Choi & Mattila, 2008). The adverse impact of service
failures on customer satisfaction and company reputation,
however, is mitigated in situations of partial self-blame or
ambiguity over who is responsible (Yen, Gwinner, & Su,
2004). When consumers attribute the blame solely to the
company, its reputation is likely to be tarnished. However,
in situations that are beyond the control of the firm, con-
sumers are less likely to attribute blame for the service fail-
ure to the company (Folkes, 1984). For example, a negative
review about the noise from an adjacent construction site
would not be seen by consumers as a problem that could
have been prevented by the hotel. In such a case, negative
reviews are likely to be discounted and hence have little or
no effect on company reputation. Based on the preceding
discussion regarding causal attributions, the following
hypothesis is presented:
Hypothesis 2 (H2): Company reputation will be less
favorable when negative online reviews are attributed
to controllable factors as compared with non-control-
lable factors.
The Effect of Management Response on
Company Reputation
As previously stated, online reviews help consumers assess a
company’s reputation by reducing uncertainty about its char-
acter, capability, and quality of its products or services (Love
& Kraatz, 2009). A company with a favorable reputation has a
competitive advantage over its competitors, as communica-
tions from firms with a good reputation are received more
positively by potential customers (Goldberg & Hartwick,
1990; Yoon, Guffey, & Kijewski, 1993). Customers value
associations with a reputable company and oftentimes are
willing to pay a premium for its products or services (Shapiro,
1983). Reputations are enduring (Alsop, 2004), and unfavor-
able reputations are difficult to overcome (Flatt & Kowalczyk,
2011). Research shows that a favorable reputation can miti-
gate damage when implementing recovery strategies
(Dowling, 2004). Moreover, the literature on service recovery
(Hart, Heskett, & Sasser, 1990; Mattila, 2004) clearly indi-
cates that companies that respond effectively to customer
complaints benefit from increased customer loyalty and
greater profitability (Blodgett & Anderson, 2000; Öğüt & Taş,
2012; Tax, Brown, & Chandrashekaran, 1998), and that inter-
actional justice (i.e., the manner in which a company responds
to customer complaints) is more important than the level of
compensation (Blodgett, Hill, & Tax, 1997; Collie, Bradley,
& Sparks, 2002). Because company reputation can be a valu-
able asset (Walker, 2010), hotels and other service providers
Rose and Blodgett 399
should be motivated to respond to online reviews. Consumers
form expectations based on their own past experiences, word-
of-mouth communications, and a firm’s external marketing
communication efforts (Walsh & Beatty, 2007; Zeithaml,
Berry, & Parasuraman, 1993). When service failures occur,
consumers expect a company to take appropriate actions.
Responding to negative reviews can therefore be viewed as an
investment that benefits a company in the long run. The ben-
efit is twofold in that it helps to ensure repeat patronage of the
customer who posted the review, and it reassures potential
customers that these failures will not be repeated. By respond-
ing, the company signals that it cares about its customers, and
thus projects a trustworthy image. Potential customers may
then be more willing to engage in business with the company
in the future (Min et al., 2015). Companies that do not respond
to negative reviews, however, risk letting consumers draw
their own conclusion about the firm. When this is the case,
consumers might simply assume that the company is incom-
petent or does not care about its customers. Based on the
aforementioned reasoning, our third hypothesis is as follows:
Hypothesis 3 (H3): Company reputation will be more
favorable when management responds to negative
online consumer reviews as compared with not
responding.
Interactions
To more thoroughly examine the impact of management
responses on company reputation, this study will also test
for all possible two-way interactions. Based on previous
research indicating that a single negative review oftentimes
does little harm to a company’s reputation (Vermeulen &
Seegers, 2009), we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 4 (H4): Management responses will have
a greater impact on company reputation as the num-
ber of negative reviews—relative to the number of
positive reviews—increases.
Given that studies indicate that negative reviews attrib-
uted to uncontrollable factors are unlikely to affect com-
pany reputation, that problems attributed to controllable
factors can be damaging (Choi & Mattila, 2008), and that
consumers are more confident in their judgments when a
large number of customers have posted reviews (Liu, 2006),
we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 5 (H5): Controllability will have a
greater impact on company reputation as the propor-
tion of negative reviews that are attributed to control-
lable factors increases.
Hypothesis 6 (H6): Management responses will have
a greater impact on company reputation when negative
online reviews are attributed to controllable factors.
Method
Research Design
To test the hypotheses, this study utilized an experimental
design. To manipulate the independent variables, respon-
dents were asked to imagine that they were planning a trip to
New York City and were searching online for a hotel near
Times Square. They were then presented with information
about a relatively small boutique hotel in midtown Manhattan
(see Appendix A) and provided with reviews posted on an
online travel site. After reviewing the information from the
hotel’s website and the online reviews, some of which
included responses from the hotel’s management, respon-
dents were asked to complete a questionnaire (see Appendix
B for examples of reviews and management responses).
To ensure realism, the reviews were adapted from
TripAdvisor (based on hotels in New York City) and were
modified slightly to ensure that the valence of reviews, attri-
bution of blame (i.e., controllability), and management
responses were properly manipulated. The negative reviews
pertained to some of the most common complaints of hotel
guests (i.e., front desk staff, check-in, noise, cleanliness, bath-
room, room size, Internet, parking, billing, restaurant) as iden-
tified by Levy, Duan, and Boo (2013). To lessen the possibility
of confounds, fictitious usernames were used and little other
information was provided, as the presence of personal identi-
fying information has been found to affect the perceived cred-
ibility of online reviews (Xiea, Miaob, Kuoc, & Leec, 2011).
Respondents were randomly assigned to one of eight sce-
narios in a 2 (number of negative to positive reviews) × 2
(controllable vs. non-controllable issues) × 2 (management
response vs. no response) between-subjects, full-factorial
design. In all cases, subjects were presented with five reviews:
Half of the subject pool was provided with one negative and
four positive reviews, whereas the other half was presented
with two negative and three positive reviews. To have a base-
line for comparison purposes, a control group of respondents
was presented with all positive reviews. In half of the eight
scenarios, negative reviews pertained to factors that were not
under the control of management (small rooms, poor views),
and in the other scenarios, negative reviews stemmed from
issues over which management had control (e.g., poor service,
wireless Internet did not work). Finally, in half of the scenar-
ios, management posted responses to the negative reviews,
whereas in the other scenarios, management did not respond.
All responses from management included an apology and
assurance that management will do all it can to make the cus-
tomer’s next visit more satisfying (those that pertained to non-
controllable factors also tactfully pointed out that fact).
Dependent Variable
The dependent variable, company reputation, is an attitudi-
nal type of measure, reflecting subjects’ overall evaluation
400 Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 57(4)
of the hotel (Walsh & Beatty, 2007). It was measured with
eight items (e.g., this hotel cares about its guests, the staff at
this hotel is top notch, I would enjoy staying at this hotel, I
would recommend this hotel), using a 1 to 7 Likert-type
scale. The scale exhibited high reliability, with a Cronbach’s
alpha of .89.
Subjects
The sample included both traditional (full-time) and nontra-
ditional (part-time) students at several universities in the
United States. A total of 255 usable responses were col-
lected. The sample was evenly split between males and
females with 55% between the ages of 18 and 23, 25%
between ages 24 and 29, and approximately 20% who were
30 years of age or older. Given that Gretzel and Yoo (2008)
found that younger consumers (18-25) are significantly
more likely to use online reviews to plan a trip, and that mil-
lennials (those aged 18 to 34) are now the largest age group
in the United States (Fry, 2015), the sample is appropriate
for this study. Approximately 45% of the respondents were
Caucasian, 22% were African American, 11% were Asian
American, and 6% were Hispanic. Approximately 75%
reported more than 1 year of full-time work experience.
Seventy-seven percent of the respondents had booked a
hotel online 1 to 3 times within the past 2 years, and, of
those, more than 50% had done so more than once.
Furthermore, 91% had made an online purchase within the
past year. Overall, the sample consists of a fairly broad set
of individuals who frequently book hotels and make other
purchases online.
Results
Manipulation and Confound Checks
To assess the reliability and validity of the independent
variables, manipulation and confound checks were first
conducted (Perdue & Summers, 1986). To do so, a control
group (in which all five reviews were positive) was
employed to establish a baseline for company reputation. A
one-way ANOVA revealed that company reputation in both
“number of negative to positive reviews” conditions was
significantly different from that of the control group. As
expected, company reputation in the control group (M =
5.93) was more favorable than in the “1 negative/4 posi-
tive” (M = 5.68) and “2 negative/3 positive” conditions
(M = 5.39). To ensure that controllability was properly
manipulated, subjects were also asked whether the hotel
had any control over the size of each room, the view from
each room, and customer service. Subjects indicated that
the hotel had little control over the size of the room (M =
2.85) or the view from the room (M = 2.19), but it had much
control over customer service (M = 6.31). To rule out other
confounds, subjects were also asked to rate the quality of
the reviews. Findings revealed that the perceived quality of
the online reviews was not affected by hotel management
responses or whether the underlying issue giving rise to the
negative review was controllable (vs. not controllable).
Together, these findings provide confidence as to the reli-
ability and validity of subsequent findings.
Hypotheses Testing
The hypotheses were tested via a 2 × 2 × 2 full-factorial
ANOVA. Cell sizes ranged from 31 to 35. To test H1, H2,
and H3, the main effects of negative/positive reviews, con-
trollability, and management responses were examined. To
test H4, H5, and H6, the appropriate interactions were
examined (see Exhibit 2 for mean values of company repu-
tation across each of the various conditions, and Exhibit 3
for statistical results).
As hypothesized in H1, as the proportion of negative to
positive reviews increased (i.e., from one out of five, to two
out of five), company reputation became less favorable
2
(M = 5.68 vs. 5.39), F(1, 247) = 7.72, p = .006; ηp = .03,
small effect. H2 was also supported, as company reputation
was less favorable when negative reviews pertained to con-
trollable factors (M = 5.25 when controllable vs. 5.82 when
2
not controllable), F(1, 247) = 31.15, p = .000; ηp = .11,
medium effect. Contrary to Vermeulen and Seegers (2009),
this finding indicates that a single negative review (i.e., that
is attributed to a controllable factor) can indeed be harmful.
As hypothesized in H3, the effect of management response
was significant—company reputation was more favorable
when management responded to negative reviews (M =
5.65 with response vs. 5.42 with no response), F(1, 247) =
2
4.18, p = .042; ηp = .017, small effect.
Contrary to H4, the interaction of management responses
and the proportion of negative to positive reviews was not sig-
nificant, F(1, 247) = 0.16, p = .686. Although it was hypothe-
sized that management responses would exert a greater impact
on company reputation as the proportion of negative to posi-
tive online reviews increased, the beneficial effect of respond-
ing to negative reviews (i.e., as compared with no response)
was fairly consistent across the 1 negative/4 positive (M = 5.81
vs. 5.55) and 2 negative/3 positive conditions (M = 5.48 vs.
5.30). The data also failed to support H5. Although the adverse
impact of controllability attributions on company reputation
appeared to be marginally greater in the 2 negative/3 positive
condition (M = 5.03 when the problem was controllable vs.
5.74 when not controllable) as compared with the 1 negative/4
positive condition (M = 5.47 vs. 5.90), the interaction was not
statistically significant, F(1, 247) = 1.51, p = .220. H6, how-
ever, was supported as the interaction of controllability attribu-
tions and management response was statistically significant,
2
F(1, 247) = 10.91, p = .001; ηp = .04, small effect. When prob-
lems were perceived to be controllable, management responses
to online reviews resulted in more favorable perceptions of the
firm (M = 5.53 when management responded vs. 4.96 with no
Rose and Blodgett 401

Exhibit 2:
Study 1: Cell Means for Company Reputation.

Negative/Positive Reviews × Controllability No Response Management Response

2 negative/3 positive reviews Controllable 4.83 (n = 31) 5.22 (n = 31)
2 negative/3 positive reviews Not controllable 5.77 (n = 31) 5.72 (n = 34)
1 negative/4 positive reviews Controllable 5.08 (n = 31) 5.82 (n = 34)
1 negative/4 positive reviews Not controllable 6.02 (n = 31) 5.80 (n = 32)

Exhibit 3:
Study 1: ANOVA.

Source SS df MS F p η2p
Corrected model 39.70a 7 5.67 8.04 .000 .186
Intercept 7,789.38 1 7,789.38 11,040.82 .000 .978
Proportion of negative/positive reviews 5.45 1 5.45 7.72 .006 .030
Controllability attributions 21.98 1 21.98 31.15 .000 .112
Management response 2.95 1 2.96 4.18 .042 .017
Management Response × Negative/Positive Reviews 0.12 1 0.12 0.16 .686 .006
Negative/Positive Reviews × Controllability 1.07 1 1.07 1.51 .220 .001
Controllability × Management Response 7.70 1 7.70 10.91 .001 .042
Control × Response × Negative/Positive 1.07 1 1.07 1.51 .220 .006
Error 174.26 247 0.71 — — —
Total 8033.95 255 — — — —
Corrected total 213.96 254 — — — —

Note. ANOVA = analysis of variance; SS = sum of squares; MS = mean square

a. R2 = .186 (Adjusted R2 = .162).

response), F(1, 125) = 14.19, p = .000. When problems were
attributed to non-controllable factors, management responses
had no discernable impact (M = 5.76 vs. 5.89), F(1, 126) =
.808, p = .371, as company reputation was unaffected by nega-
tive online reviews. A one-way ANOVA revealed no signifi-
cant difference in company reputation between the latter two
“non-controllable” negative review(s) conditions and the con-
trol group, in which all reviews were positive, F(2, 157) =
0.442, p = .643. This latter finding is good news for hotels,
resorts, and other hospitality and service providers.
Follow-Up Study
Given that the main effect of management response on
company reputation was significant, a follow-up study was
conducted to determine whether the type or content of the
response matters. Additional data were collected and com-
bined the relevant data from Study 1 so that the effect of an
apology with assurance of future satisfaction (i.e., the type
of response utilized in the original study) could be com-
pared with that of an apology with notification of corrective
action. According to Coombs (1998), an organization that
engages in corrective action signals to consumers that it not
only accepts responsibility for the current problem but is
also committed to preventing future problems. B. K. Lee
(2005) provided evidence that this type of response might
be more effective in restoring company reputation than a
simple apology. Hence, we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 7 (H7): The type of management
response (an apology with assurance of future satis-
faction versus an apology with corrective action) will
have an effect on company reputation.
Using the same set of customer reviews, four additional sce-
narios were developed in which management—in addition to
apologizing—also indicated the type of corrective action it had
taken to remedy the problem (see Examples 4 and 5 in Appendix
B). To obtain sufficient data, an additional 133 usable surveys
were collected using the same collection method and drawing
from the respondent pool described in the original study. A 2 ×
2 × 2 (Controllability × Number of Negative to Positive
Reviews × Type of Management Response) full-factorial
ANOVA was used to test the hypotheses.
As in Study 1, as the proportion of negative to positive
reviews increased (i.e., from one to two out of five), company
reputation became less favorable (M = 5.83 vs. 5.38) F(1,
2
256) = 17.78, p = .000; ηp = .065, medium effect. Similarly,
402 Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 57(4)
Exhibit 4:
Study 2: Cell Means for Company Reputation.
Negative/Positive Reviews × Controllability Apology and Corrective Action
2 negative/3 positive reviews Controllable
2 negative/3 positive reviews Not controllable
1 negative/4 positive reviews Controllable
1 negative/4 positive reviews Not controllable
company reputation was less favorable when negative
reviews pertained to controllable (vs. uncontrollable) factors
2
(M = 5.44 vs. 5.76), F(1, 246) = 8.11, p = .005; ηp = .031,
small effect. Combined with Study 1, these findings clearly
demonstrate the adverse impact of negative online reviews
particularly those that pertain to controllable factors.
Given that Study 1 demonstrated that company reputation
is enhanced when management responds to negative reviews,
the main purpose of Study 2 was to determine whether the
type of management response matters. Contrary to H7, the
main effect of type of management response on company
reputation was not significant, F(1, 246) = 0.42, p = .517. The
findings revealed no significant difference between an apol-
ogy with assurance of future satisfaction, versus an apology
with corrective action (= 5.65 vs. 5.57), F(1, 246) = 0.42, p =
.517. Similarly, the interaction of management response type
and the proportion of negative to positive reviews was not sig-
nificant, F(1, 256) = 1.36, p = .245, nor was the interaction of
management response type and controllability, F(1, 256) =
0.44, p = .506. Overall, it appears that an apology with assur-
ance of future satisfaction and an apology with notification of
corrective action are equally effective (see Exhibit 4 for cell
means and Exhibit 5 for statistical results).
It should be noted that in Study 2, the interaction of con-
trollability and the proportion of negative to positive reviews
2
was significant, F(1, 256) = 8.38, p = .004; ηp = .032, small
effect. In Study 2, the adverse impact of controllability on
company reputation in the 2 negative/3 positive condition
(M = 5.05 when controllable vs. 5.69 when not controllable)
F(1, 131) = 15.32, p = .000, was greater as compared with
the 1 negative/4 positive condition (M = 5.83 vs. 5.84) F(1,
129) = .000, p = .983. This finding indicates that manage-
ment responses to negative online reviews are effective only
up to a point (i.e., as the number of reviews that pertain to
controllable factors increase, management responses do not
fully counterbalance the negative information).
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to determine whether it is benefi-
cial for management to respond to negative online reviews. The
results indicate that when service failures pertain to controllable
factors, management responses can mitigate the adverse effects
of negative reviews and have a favorable impact on company
reputation. In these situations, responding to negative
Apology and Assurance of Satisfaction
4.89 (n = 33) 5.22 (n = 31)
5.65 (n = 35) 5.72 (n = 34)
5.86 (n = 31) 5.82 (n = 34)
5.87 (n = 34) 5.80 (n = 32)
reviews—with an apology and assurance of future satisfaction
or with an apology and notification of correction action—shows
that the company is conscientious and cares about its custom-
ers, thus exhibiting good character (Rindova et al., 2005). This
finding is consistent with Min et al. (2015), who found that
empathetic responses resulted in more favorable hotel ratings,
which complements research that indicates that reputation man-
agement benefits companies in the long term through increased
trust, cooperation, and reciprocity from consumers (Tennie,
Frith, & Frith, 2010). It should be noted, however, that manage-
ment responses do not fully compensate for the harmful effects
of negative reviews that pertain to controllable factors. In both
Study 1 and Study 2, company reputation became less favor-
able as the number of negative reviews pertaining to controlla-
ble factors increased, although management responded to each
negative review. The good news, though, is that even as the
number of negative reviews pertaining to controllable factors
increased, company reputation was more favorable when man-
agement responded to the reviews (as compared with when it
did not respond). This latter finding indicates that management
responses serve—if not fully, at least partially—to counter-
balance the negativity effect (Ahluwalia, 2002), and that it is in
a firm’s best interests to respond to negative online reviews,
especially those that are due to controllable factors.
Another key finding is that when negative reviews pertain
to issues that are not under management’s control, company
reputation is not harmed. Even as the proportion of negative
reviews stemming from uncontrollable factors increased
from “1 negative/4 positive” to “2 negative/3 positive,” com-
pany reputation was unaffected. This finding is consistent
with attribution theory, and indicates that when the company
is not to blame, negative reviews are discounted (Hess,
Ganesan, & Klein, 2003; Poon et al., 2004). In these situa-
tions, individuals do not seem to hold the company respon-
sible. Given that company reputation is not adversely affected
when negative reviews pertain to uncontrollable factors, one
might conclude that it is not necessary for management to
respond. As a practical matter, though, it might be wise to
acknowledge and respond to these reviews, further demon-
strating empathy and good character. Doing so could be espe-
cially helpful in the case of “high risk-averse” travelers who
find negative reviews more useful than positive reviews
(Casaló, Flavián, Guinalíu, & Ekinci, 2015), and high-
involvement travelers who process information via a central
route of persuasion (Filieri & McLeay, 2014).
Rose and Blodgett 403

Exhibit 5:
Study 2: ANOVA.

Source SS df MS F p η2p
Corrected model 28.99a 7 4.14 5.21 .000 .125
Intercept 8,273.11 1 8,273.11 10,399.02 .000 .976
Proportion of negative/positive reviews 14.15 1 14.15 17.80 .000 .065
Controllability attributions 6.45 1 6.45 8.11 .005 .031
Type of management response 0.34 1 0.34 0.42 .517 .002
Type of Response × Negative/Positive Reviews 1.08 1 1.08 1.36 .245 .032
Negative/Positive Reviews × Controllability 6.67 1 6.67 8.38 .004 .005
Controllability × Type of Response 0.35 1 0.35 0.44 .506 .002
Control × Negative/Positive × Response Type 0.23 1 0.23 0.29 .591 .001
Error 203.66 256 0.80 — — —
Total 8,529.62 264 — — — —
Corrected total 232.66 263 — — — —

Note. ANOVA = analysis of variance; SS = sum of squares; MS = mean square; —denotes empty cell.
a. R2 = .125 (Adjusted R2 = .101).

The follow-up study indicated that an apology with assur-
ance of future satisfaction and an apology with notification
of corrective action are equally effective. However, further
research is warranted to identify the optimal form of man-
agement response. Overall, these findings can help hotels,
resorts, and other service providers take a more strategic
approach in responding to and utilizing online reviews (Park
& Allen, 2013). Responding to negative online reviews in an
ongoing and purposeful manner can enhance a hotel’s repu-
tation and increase bookings as many consumers use these
when making travel decisions. These findings are particu-
larly important for upper-tier hotels whose sales are heavily
influenced by highly positive ratings, as well as for hotels in
the mid- and lower-tier segments, in which sales are affected
more by the number of online reviews (Blal & Sturman,
2014). By responding to negative reviews, hotels and resorts
are likely to increase the number of reviews, which in turn
leads to more positive ratings (Melián-González et al., 2013)
and higher booking transaction values (Torres et al., 2015).
Limitations and Future Research
Although this study found that it is beneficial for management
to respond to negative online reviews, a greater variety of con-
ditions is necessary to flesh out boundary conditions. Future
studies, for example, could include a greater number of
reviews (both positive and negative) to determine whether the
adverse impact of negative reviews on company reputation is
linear or curvilinear. Some studies indicate that the effects of
positive and negative reviews are curvilinear (Duverger,
2013) or asymmetric (Park & Nicolau, 2015). Additional con-
texts are also called for as this study was based on a single
hotel. Future studies should include a greater cross-section of
hotel properties along with other types of service providers.
The severity of the problem could also be varied. In the cur-
rent study, the underlying problems might be considered by
some individuals to be only slightly to moderately severe.
Future studies might explore situations in which the consumer
encountered a more extreme situation or suffered a more sub-
stantial loss. And, although the respondent pool was fairly
diverse, it would be beneficial to include a greater number of
middle-aged adults who did not grow up with the Internet and
who perhaps are not as connected to social media as the
younger population of this study. Finally, some online review
sites do not allow companies to respond to consumer postings,
thus limiting the applicability of these findings.
To better disentangle the effects of the independent vari-
ables, future studies might include reviews for multiple hotels
and ask respondents to indicate which one they would choose.
Research might also explore different types of management
responses. Although this study found no difference between an
“apology with assurance of future satisfaction” and an “apol-
ogy with corrective action,” it is still plausible that some types
of responses are more effective than others. It is also possible
that some types of responses are ineffective and perhaps even
counterproductive. Another issue is whether management
should tactfully point out when the customer is to blame. On
the surface, doing so might seem counterproductive; however,
perhaps there are situations when such a response is warranted
(e.g., a booking mistake is actually the fault of the customer; or
in the case of a “deviant” customer). It might also be interest-
ing to examine whether the effectiveness of different responses
is moderated by gender. Previous research demonstrates that
women play a dominant role in family decision making
(Mottiar & Quinn, 2004), and that women rely to a greater
extent than men on online reviews to reduce risk when shop-
ping for hotels (Kim et al., 2011); hence, it is important to be
particularly responsive to this segment.
Summary
In conclusion, online reviews are pervasive and highly
influential in today’s social media age. Many consumers
will not make a purchase without first seeking out online
404 Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 57(4)

reviews. Service providers such as hotels should not ignore
negative customer reviews but instead should manage their
reputations by effectively responding to negative reviews.
Companies today should view such activities as an invest-
ment for future patronage. However, not all review sites
allow marketers to respond to consumer reviews.
Nonetheless, this study demonstrates that hotels and other
service providers can benefit by monitoring online reviews
and responding if so allowed, especially if the review per-
tains to an issue that can be controlled by management.

Appendix A
Description of Hotel Provided to Respondents.
Rose and Blodgett 405
406 Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 57(4)
Appendix B
Examples of Online Consumer Reviews and
Management Responses
Example 1
Positive Review
“My new favorite hotel. A gem!” The Parisian is a delight-
ful find; I enjoyed it so much that I plan to stay here again
on my next trip to New York. For constant travelers, the
Parisian makes an average trip a delight! The service is out-
standing, with thoughtful consideration for any anticipated
needs. The Parisian provides breakfast, snacks 24 hr a day,
and evening wine and cheese that is a sumptuous little feast
in a setting that is also a peaceful and charming place for
quiet reading or conversation. Every space is immaculately
maintained—I am fussy about cleanliness and give the
Parisian a heartfelt five-star rating. This is my new favorite
hotel and there are no drawbacks!
•• What was the purpose of the visit? business
•• How many were in your group? solo traveler
•• When did you become a member? August 10, 2010
•• Would you recommend this hotel to a friend? yes
Example 2
Negative Review Due to a Controllable Factor
“Look elsewhere—rated too high!” I really do not under-
stand the high praise for this hotel. We stayed at the Parisian
for 3 nights for our honeymoon. The hotel was run-down,
the rooms smelled musty, the staff was clueless, and the ser-
vice was poor. In addition, neither the Internet nor the wire-
less service was working in our room. The staff did nothing
to resolve the problem except give us a telephone number to
call (we were told that we would not be charged for the call).
However, at check out, they charged us for the call, and we
had to ask for the manager to remove the charge. Because
we never had Internet service in our room, we had to use the
common room, which is where breakfast was served.
The food was mediocre, and the breakfast staff was loud
and carrying on private conversations instead of clearing
tables. Breakfast was just pastry and cereal, and the evening
wine and cheese were unremarkable. We were very disap-
pointed with this hotel; it took the fun out of our trip.
•• What was the purpose of the visit? honeymoon
•• How many were in your group? spouse/significant
other
•• What is your age range? 35-49
•• Would you recommend this hotel to a friend? no
Management Response With Apology and Assurance
of Satisfaction
Dear mack_10000,
In response to your comments about our hotel and ser-
vice, I would like to first state that while the Parisian is an
older hotel, we do maintain our décor and furnishings—
even though they may not be to your liking. Second, all our
staff have been trained. Most of the guests are satisfied with
our knowledgeable and helpful staff.
As for the Internet connection, all of our rooms have
wireless, high speed Internet access. However, sometimes,
it may take a few minutes for laptops to get a signal. Our
staff was trained to resolve Internet connectivity issues by
providing guests with a password to connect to our WIFI
and by explaining that laptops may not detect signals
immediately.
All of us at the Parisian Hotel are proud of the reputation
we have built over the years. We boast of having a kind and
caring staff, and we truly believe that our guests deserve to
be treated with the highest level of courtesy and respect.
Please be assured that if you choose the Parisian for your
next visit to New York, we will do everything in our power
to ensure your stay will be a pleasant one.
If you decide to stay with us again, I will provide you
with my cell phone number at check in. You can contact me
directly if you need anything during your stay. Thank you
for your time and consideration. I hope to have the pleasure
of welcoming you again to the Parisian.
Stephanie Woods, General Manager
The Parisian Hotel
Example 3
Negative Review Due to an Uncontrollable Factor
“For the price—just okay.” I recently stayed here for 3
nights in a mini suite. Perhaps we had high expectations
because of the many glowing reviews; however, we found
this hotel to be only OK for the price point. We were given
a room with a view of the surrounding office buildings.
Overall, our stay was fine; however, we were looking for
better than fine, especially for the price and because of all
the great reviews we read. I would only stay here again if it
was a real bargain—there are too many other good choices
in New York City.
•• What was the purpose of the visit? leisure
•• How many were in your group? spouse/partner
•• Would you recommend this hotel to a friend? no
Management Response With Apology and Assurance
of Satisfaction
Dear Penbelwest,
It was very disappointing to read your comments and to
learn that your stay did not live up to expectations.
Admittedly, our junior suite has a less than desirable view
of an office building. Because the hotel is located among
many tall buildings (in a city where space is at a premium
for real estate and hotels), many rooms have obstructed
views. We appreciate your stay with us and would like to
have you back in the future. While we cannot offer a better
view, we will be certain to make your stay comfortable and
Rose and Blodgett 407
positively memorable. Please feel free to contact me
directly. We hope to see you again!
Stephanie Woods, General Manager
The Parisian Hotel
Example 4
Negative Review Due to a Controllable Factor
“Look elsewhere—rated too high!” I really do not under-
stand the high praise for this hotel. We stayed at the Parisian
for 3 nights for our honeymoon. The hotel was run-down,
the rooms smelled musty, the staff was clueless, and the ser-
vice was poor. In addition, neither the Internet nor the wire-
less service was working in our room. The staff did nothing
to resolve the problem except give us a telephone number to
call (we were told that we would not be charged for the call).
However, at check out, they charged us for the call, and we
had to ask for the manager to remove the charge. Because
we never had Internet service in our room, we had to use the
common room, which is where breakfast was served.
The food was mediocre, and the breakfast staff was loud
and carrying on private conversations instead of clearing
tables. Breakfast was just pastry and cereal, and the evening
wine and cheese were unremarkable. We were very disap-
pointed with this hotel; it took the fun out of our trip.
•• What was the purpose of the visit? honeymoon
•• How many were in your group? spouse/significant
other
•• What is your age range? 35-49
•• Would you recommend this hotel to a friend? no
Management Response andApologyWith Notification
of Corrective Action
Dear mack_10000,
It appears that we have a lot of apologizing to do. After
many years of seeing our guests happy, cozy, and at home in
Times Square, we were stunned and heartbroken to learn
that you were disappointed. Although it was difficult to
learn about your negative experience, we are grateful that
you brought these issues to our attention as this is the only
way we can address them and prevent similar problems
from arising in the future. We are even more grateful to
have this opportunity to assure future guests that we have
taken their comments extremely serious.
We have implemented numerous programs to ensure a
speedy return to our highest standard of hospitality. Some
of the changes have been operating procedures and training,
whereas some have been technical (such as free, high speed
Internet service). However, the most critical change, and the
one that was mainly responsible for your complaint, was in
our staff. All of us at the Parisian Hotel are proud of the
reputation we have built over the years. We boast of having
a kind and caring staff, and we truly believe that our guests
deserve to be treated with the highest level of courtesy and
respect. Please be assured that if you choose the Parisian for
your next visit to New York, we will do everything in our
power to ensure your stay will be a pleasant one.
If you decide to stay with us again, I will provide you
with my cell phone number at check in. You can contact me
directly if you need anything during your stay. I hope to
have the pleasure of welcoming you again to the Parisian.
Stephanie Woods, General Manager
The Parisian Hotel
Example 5
Negative Review Due to an Uncontrollable Factor
“For the price—just okay.” I recently stayed here for 3
nights in a mini suite. Perhaps we had high expectations
because of the many glowing reviews; however, we found
this hotel to be only OK for the price point. We were given
a room with a view of the surrounding office buildings.
Overall, our stay was fine; however, we were looking for
better than fine, especially for the price and because of all
the great reviews we read. I would only stay here again if it
was a real bargain—there are too many other good choices
in New York City.
•• What was the purpose of the visit? leisure
•• How many were in your group? spouse/partner
•• Would you recommend this hotel to a friend? no
Management Response andApologyWith Notification
of Corrective Action
Dear Penbelwest,
It was very disappointing to read your comments and to
learn that your stay did not live up to expectations. Admittedly,
our junior suite has a less than desirable view of an office
building. If you had mentioned this to us during your stay, we
could have moved you to another room. Because the hotel is
located among many tall buildings (in a city where space is at
a premium for real estate and hotels), many rooms have
obstructed views. However, to avoid this problem in the future,
we will provide a virtual tour on our website of the different
types of rooms we offer. We want our guests to make informed
decisions on which type of room best suits their needs. We
would appreciate having another opportunity to make your
stay more comfortable and positively memorable. Please feel
free to contact me directly. We hope to see you again!
Stephanie Woods, General Manager
The Parisian Hotel
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, author-
ship, or publication of this article.
408 Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 57(4)
References
Ahluwalia, R. (2002). How prevalent is the negativity effect in
consumer environments? Journal of Consumer Research, 29,
270-279.
Alsop, R. J. (2004). The 18 immutable laws of corporate reputa-
tion. New York, NY: Free Press.
Anderson, C. K. (2012). The impact of social media on lodg-
ing performance. Center for Hospitality Research Reports,
12(15). Retrieved from http://scholarship.sha.cornell.edu/
chrpubs/5/
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K.
D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General
Psychology, 5, 323-370.
Blal, I., & Sturman, M. C. (2014). The differential effects of the
quality and quantity of online reviews on hotel room sales.
Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 55, 365-375.
Blodgett, J. G., & Anderson, R. D. (2000). A Bayesian network
model of the consumer complaint process. Journal of Service
Research, 2, 321-338.
Blodgett, J. G., Hill, D. J., & Tax, S. S. (1997). The effects of
distributive, procedural, and interactional justice on postcom-
plaint behavior. Journal of Retailing, 73, 185-210.
Bly, L. (2010, November 26). Travel review site provokes preen-
ing, ruffled feathers. USA Today, p. 4D.
Casaló, L.V., Flavián, C., Guinalíu, M., & Ekinci, Y. (2015).
Avoiding the dark side of positive online consumer reviews:
Enhancing reviews’ usefulness for high risk-averse travelers.
Journal of Business Research, 68 (9), 1829-1835.
Chen, M., Su, K., & Tsai, W. (2007). Competitive tension: The
awareness-motivation-capability perspective. Academy of
Management Journal, 50, 101-118.
Chen, Y., Yong, L., & Zhang, J. (2012). When do third-party
product reviews affect firm value and what can firms do? The
case of media critics and professional movie reviews. Journal
of Marketing, 76(2), 116-134.
Chintagunta, P. K., Gopinath, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2010).
The effects of online user reviews on movie box office per-
formance: Accounting for sequential rollout and aggregation
across local markets. Marketing Science, 29, 944-959.
Chiou, J., & Cheng, C. (2003). Should a company have message
boards on its web sites? Journal of Interactive Marketing,
17(3), 50-61.
Choi, S., & Mattila, A. S. (2008). Perceived controllability and ser-
vice expectations: Influences on customer reactions following
service failure. Journal of Business Research, 61, 24-30.
Christodoulides, G., Michaelidou, N., & Argyriou, E. (2012).
Cross-national differences in e-WOM influence. European
Journal of Marketing, 46, 1689-1707.
Collie, T., G. Bradley, & B.A. Sparks. (2002). Fair process revis-
ited: differential effects of interactional and procedural justice
in the presence of social comparison information. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 38 (6), 545-555.
Cone Communications. (2011). 2011 online influence trend
tracker. Retrieved from http://www.conecomm.com/2011con
eonlineinfluencetrendtracker
Coombs, W. T. (1998). An analytic framework for crisis situa-
tions: Better responses from a better understanding of the situ-
ation. Journal of Public Relations Research, 10, 177-191.
DeMaeyer, P. (2012). Impact of online consumer reviews on
sales and price strategies: A review and directions for future
research. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 21,
132-139.
Dowling, G. R. (2004). Corporate reputations: Should you com-
pete on yours? California Management Review, 46, 19-36.
Duverger, P. (2013). Curvilinear effects of user-generated con-
tent on hotels’ market share: A dynamic panel-data analysis.
Journal of Travel Research, 52, 465-478.
eMarketer. (2013). With online reviews critical to travelers,
marketers adjust their approach. Retrieved from http://
www.emarketer.com/Article/With-Online-Reviews-Critical-
Travelers-Marketers-Adjust-Their-Approach/1010013/
Filieri, R., & McLeay, F. (2014). E-WOM and accommodation:
An analysis of the factors that influence travelers’ adoption of
information from online reviews. Journal of Travel Research,
53, 44-57.
Flatt, S. J., & Kowalczyk, S. J. (2011). Corporate reputation per-
sistence and its diminishing returns. International Journal of
Business and Social Science, 2(19), 1-11.
Folkes, V. S. (1984). Consumer reactions to product failure: An
attributional approach. Journal of Consumer Research, 10,
398-409.
Fry, R. (2015). This year, millennials will overtake baby boom-
ers. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.
pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/01/16/this-year-millennials-
will-overtake-baby-boomers
Goldberg, M. E., & Hartwick, J. (1990). The effects of advertiser
reputation and extremity of advertising claim on advertising
effectiveness. Journal of Consumer Research, 17, 172-179.
Gretzel, U., & K.H. Yoo. (2008). Use and impact of online travel
reviews. In P. O’Connor, W. Höpken, & U. Gretzel (Eds.),
Information and communication technologies in tourism 2008
(pp. 35–46). New York: Springer.
Hart, C.W. L., J.L. Heskett, & E.W. Sasser Jr. (1990). The profit-
able art of service recovery. Harvard Business Review, 68 (4),
148-156.
Herr, P. M., Kardes, F. R., & Kim, J. (1991). Effects of word-of-
mouth and product attribute information on persuasion: An
accessibility-diagnosticity perspective. Journal of Consumer
Research, 17, 454-462.
Hess, R. L., Ganesan, S., & Klein, N. M. (2003). Service failure
and recovery: The impact of relationship factors on customer
satisfaction. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 31,
127-145.
Jiménez, F. R., & Mendoza, N. A. (2013). Too popular to ignore:
The influence of online reviews on purchase intentions
of search and experience products. Journal of Interactive
Marketing, 27, 226-235.
Kelley, H. H. (1973). The processes of causal attribution. American
Psychologist, 28, 107-128.
Kim, E. E. K., Mattila, A. S., & Baloglu, S. (2011). Effects of
gender and expertise on consumers’ motivation to read online
hotel reviews. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 52, 399-406.
Lee, B. K. (2005). Hong Kong consumers’ evaluation in an air-
line crash: A path model analysis. Journal of Public Relations
Research, 17, 363-391.
Rose and Blodgett 409
Lee, C.S., & L. Ma. 2012. News sharing in social media: the effect
of gratifications and prior experience. Computers in Human
Behavior, 28 (2), 331-339.
Lee, M., Rodgers, S., & Kim, M. (2009). Effects of valence and
extremity of eWOM on attitude toward the brand and website.
Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 31(2),
1-11.
Levy, S., Duan, W., & Boo, S. (2013). An analysis of one-star
online reviews and responses in the Washington, DC lodging
market. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 54, 49-63.
Litvin, S. W., Goldsmith, R. E., & Pan, B. (2008). Electronic
word-of-mouth in hospitality and tourism management.
Tourism Management, 29, 458-468.
Liu, Y. (2006). Word of mouth for movies: Its dynamics and
impact on box office revenue. Journal of Marketing, 70(3),
74-89.
Love, E. G., & Kraatz, M. (2009). Character, conformity, or the
bottom line? How and why downsizing affected corporate
reputation. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 314-335.
Maheswaran, D., & Meyers-Levy, J. (1990). The influence of mes-
sage framing and issue involvement. Journal of Marketing
Research, 27, 361-367.
Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., & Douglas, S. C. (2007). The role,
function, and contribution of attribution theory to leadership:
A review. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 561-585.
Mattila, A. 2004. The impact of service failures on customer
loyalty: The moderating role of affective commitment.
International Journal of Service Industry Management, 15
(2), 134-149.
Melián-González, S., Bulchand-Gidumal, J., & López-Valcárcel,
B. G. (2013). Online customer reviews of hotels: As par-
ticipation increases, better evaluation is obtained. Cornell
Hospitality Quarterly, 53, 274-283.
Milgrom, P., & Roberts, J. (1986). Relying on the information of
interested parties. RAND Journal of Economics, 17(1), 18-32.
Min, H., Lim, Y., & Magnini, V. P. (2015). Factors affecting
customer satisfaction in responses to negative online hotel
reviews: The impact of empathy, paraphrasing, and speed.
Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 56, 223-231.
Mottiar, Z., & Quinn, D. (2004). Couple dynamics in household
tourism decision making: Women as the gatekeepers? Journal
of Vacation Marketing, 10, 149-160.
Öğüt, H., & Taş, B. K. O. (2012). The influence of Internet cus-
tomer reviews on the online sales and prices in hotel industry.
The Service Industries Journal, 32, 197-214.
Pan, Y., & Zhang, J. Q. (2011). Born unequal: A study of the
helpfulness of user-generated product reviews. Journal of
Retailing, 87, 598-612.
Park, S., & Allen, J. P. (2013). Responding to online reviews:
Problem solving and engagement in hotels. Cornell
Hospitality Quarterly, 54, 64-73.
Park, S., & Nicolau, J. L. (2015). Asymmetric effects of online
consumer reviews. Annals of Tourism Research, 50, 67-83.
Perdue, B. C., & Summers, J. O. (1986). Checking the success
of manipulations in marketing experiments. Journal of
Marketing Research, 23, 317-326.
Poon, P. S., Hui, M. K., & Au, K. (2004). Attributions on dis-
satisfying service encounters: A cross-cultural comparison
between Canadian and PRC consumers. European Journal of
Marketing, 38, 1527-1540.
Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co-creating unique
value with customers. Strategy & Leadership, 32, 4-9.
Rindova, V. P., Williamson, I. O., Petkova, A. P., & Sever, J. M.
(2005). Being good or being known: An empirical exami-
nation of the dimensions, antecedents, and consequences of
organizational reputation. Academy of Management Journal,
48, 1033-1049.
Shapiro, C. (1983). Premiums for high quality products as returns
to reputations. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 98, 659-679.
Sher, P. J., & Lee, S. (2009). Consumer skepticism and online
reviews: An elaboration likelihood model perspective. Social
Behavior and Personality, 37, 137-144.
Sparks, B., & Browning, V. (2011). The impact of online reviews
on hotel booking intentions and perception of trust. Tourism
Management, 32, 1310-1323.
Sparks, B., Perkins, H. E., & Buckley, R. (2013). Online travel
reviews as persuasive communication: The effects of content
type, source, and certification logos on consumer behavior.
Tourism Management, 39, 1-9.
Tax, S. S., Brown, S. W., & Chandrashekaran, M. (1998). Customer
evaluations of service complaint experiences: Implications for
relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 62(2), 60-76.
Tennie, C., Frith, C. D., & Frith, U. (2010). Reputation manage-
ment in the age of the world-wide web. Trends in Cognitive
Sciences, 14, 482-488.
Torres, E. N., Singh, D., & Robertson-Ring, A. (2015). Consumer
reviews and the creation of booking transaction value: Lessons
from the hotel industry. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 50, 77-83.
TripAdvisor. (2013). TripAdvisor global study reveals trav-
eler spending and accommodation profitability expected to
rise in 2013. Retrieved from http://www.tripadvisor.com/
PressCenter-i5794-c1-Press_Releases.html
Vermeulen, I. E., & Seegers, D. (2009). Tried and tested: The
impact of online hotel reviews on consumer consideration.
Tourism Management, 30, 123-127.
Walker, K. (2010). A systematic review of the corporate reputation
literature: Definition, measurement, and theory. Corporate
Reputation Review, 12, 357-387.
Walsh, G., & Beatty, S. E. (2007). Customer-based corporate rep-
utation of a service firm: Scale development and validation.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35, 127-143.
Weiner, B. (2000). Attributional thoughts about consumer behav-
ior. Journal of Consumer Research, 27, 382-387.
World Travel Market. (2010). World Travel Market 2010 industry
report. Retrieved from http://business.guiomatic.com/docu-
ments/researches/wtm2010_industry_report%202011.pdf
Xiang, Z., & Gretzel, U. (2010). Role of social media in online
travel information search. Tourism Management, 31, 179-188.
Xiea, H., Miaob, L., Kuoc, P.-J., & Leec, B.-Y. (2011). Consumers’
responses to ambivalent online hotel reviews: The role of
perceived source credibility and pre-decisional disposition.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30, 178-183.
Ye, Q., Law, R., & Gu, B. (2009). The impact of online user
reviews on hotel room sales. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 28, 180-182.
410 Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 57(4)
Yen, H. R., Gwinner, K. P., & Su, W. (2004). The impact of
customer participation on locus attributions following ser-
vice failure. International Journal of Service Industry
Management, 15, 7-26.
Yoon, E., Guffey, H. J., & Kijewski, V. (1993). The effects of
information and company reputation on intention to buy a
business service. Journal of Business Research, 27, 215-228.
Zeithaml, V., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1993). The nature
and determinants of customer expectations of service. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 21, 1-12.
Author Biographies 
Mei Rose (PhD, University of Mississippi) is Assistant Professor of
Marketing in the College of Business and Public Policy at University
of Alaska - Anchorage. Her previous research has focused on the
effects of interface design on children’s processing of websites.
Jeffrey G. Blodgett (PhD, Indiana University) is Professor of
Marketing at Univesity of Houston-Victoria. His research interests
include consumer complaint behavior and the effects of justice on
recovery outcomes.