Information & Management 58 (2021) 103554

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Information & Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/im

The effects of the format of two-sided online reviews: A

linguistic perspective
Shouwang Lu a, Lingyun Qiu b, *, Kanliang Wang c
a
School of Business, Renmin University of China, 59 Zhongguancun Avenue. Beijing, 100872, China
b
Guanghua School of Management, Peking University, 5 Yiheyuan Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100871, China
c
School of Business, Renmin University of China, 59 Zhongguancun Avenue, Beijing, 100872, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Drawing on the linguistic theory that differentiates between foreground and background content in narratives,
Online reviews this research proposes that consumer product attitude differs significantly between reviews written in the mixed
Electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) narrative (MN) format and the divided narrative (DN) format. Results of three experiments show that reviewers
Two-sided reviews
are more likely to use adversative conjunctions (ACs) in the MN format than in the DN format when composing
Review format
Adversative conjunction
two-sided reviews. The presence of ACs affects readers’ attitudes by shifting the allocation of attention between
Product attitude positive and negative content in a review. Moreover, this effect is stronger when positive content is presented
first.

1. Introduction
Online reviews have become an important source of product infor­
mation that can shape consumer online purchase behavior [1–3]. Re­
views can be categorized as either one-sided or two-sided [4]. Different
from one-sided reviews that consist exclusively of either favorable or
unfavorable comments, two-sided reviews address both the positive and
negative aspects of a particular product [5–7]. Past research has
revealed that two-sided reviews are perceived by consumers as more
helpful and credible than one-sided reviews because they are seen as
more objective and accurate [6–8]. Moreover, researchers have found
that consumers see themselves as more knowledgeable about a product
and are more confident in their attitudes toward the product after
reading two-sided product information than after reading one-sided
information [9].
For this reason, online retailers and product review websites
encourage users to post two-sided reviews. For example, Taobao.com, a
leading e-commerce platform in China, encourages consumers to share
opinions about both the strengths and the weaknesses of products they
have purchased. On CNET.com, an online media site for tech products,
most product reviews are divided into three sections: “The Good,” “The
Bad,” and “The Bottom Line.” BestBuy, a leading retailer of consumer
electronics, presents on its website the pros and cons of a product that
are automatically extracted, using textual mining algorithms, from a
large volume of existing customer reviews.
To help consumers post two-sided reviews, online retailers and re­
view platforms usually use two formats. The option used by most com­
panies is known as the mixed narrative (MN) format. In this format,
reviewers are provided with a single text box, in which they can
comment on the advantages and disadvantages of the focal product
according to their habits of expression. The other option is the divided
narrative (DN) format, in which reviewers are provided with two sepa­
rate text boxes, usually labeled “Pros” and “Cons.” In this format, re­
viewers have to comment on a product’s advantages and disadvantages
separately. Fig. 1 illustrates a two-sided product review in both formats.
Unlike one-sided reviews, two-sided reviews are characterized by the
copresence of textual content that has opposite valence. In the MN
format, reviewers typically comment on both the pros and cons of a
product in separate segments.1 To connect sections of opposite valence,
they tend to use specific linguistic devices such as “but” or “however”. In
linguistics, these devices are called adversative conjunctions (ACs) [10,
11]. By contrast, in the DN format, ACs are no longer needed because
pros and cons are composed in two divided sections. Therefore, it is
reasonable to expect that ACs are more likely to appear in reviews

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: qiu@gsm.pku.edu.cn (L. Qiu).
1
In reality, it is possible that the positive and negative evaluations in a two-sided review might be expressed in a fragmentary manner. In this study, we focused on
those two-sided reviews in which the pros and cons were grouped together.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2021.103554
Received 1 May 2020; Received in revised form 6 October 2021; Accepted 12 October 2021
Available online 30 October 2021
0378-7206/© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
S. Lu et al.
Fig. 1. Two-sided review presented in the MN (left) and DN (right) format.
written in the MN format than in the DN format.
Linguistic research in narratives has found that the presence of ACs
can significantly influence the way people process information [12]
because most ACs divide a sentence into two segments, which will be
processed by readers as either foreground or background information.
More important, the foreground information can attract significantly
more attention than background information [13,14]. As a result, we
propose in this research that the format of two-sided reviews can
significantly affect consumer product attitude by varying the likelihood
that ACs are used in a review and which part of the review content is
deemed to be foreground information.
This research attempts to answer the following questions: (1) Does
review format affect review composers’ usage of ACs in two-sided re­
views? (2) Does review format affect review readers’ product attitudes
by shifting their allocation of attention between the positive and nega­
tive content in a review? (3) Is there any boundary condition for such an
effect?
Although prior literature has shown that a review’s persuasiveness
can be affected by either the presentation format or the content of the
review, the research presented here differs in the following ways: (1) In
those studies that focus on reviews’ presentation format, such as
chunking, order, or font [15–17], the review’s textual content is treated
as a constant. In other words, they did not take the potential impact of
review format on review composers’ behaviors as well as the consequent
review content into consideration. (2) Studies that investigate the in­
fluence of specific linguistic elements focus almost exclusively on
one-sided reviews [4,18]. However, different information-processing
mechanisms may be at work when consumers deal with one two-sided
review as compared to two one-sided reviews of opposite valence.
Through one online experiment and two laboratory experiments, this
research examines how the format of a two-sided review may affect the
review’s content as well as readers’ responses. By examining the role of
linguistics devices such as ACs, this research extends our knowledge of
how consumers process information in online reviews and how they
form attitudes toward the products from a linguistic perspective. Our
findings can also help various review platforms optimize the interface
design of their online review systems by revealing that reviews written
in different formats may induce biases in shaping consumer attitudes.
2. Theoretical foundations
2.1. Format of online reviews
Scholars have investigated the influences of a variety of factors
related to the format of online reviews, including chunking, order, and
display interface.
Chunking refers to presenting information into small pieces, or
chunks, to make it easier to read and understand. Researchers have
examined the impact of chunking review texts according to content type
or valence. For example, researchers have found that reviews chunked
by content type (consumer experience vs. product attribute) are
2
Information & Management 58 (2021) 103554
perceived to be more helpful and easier to comprehend [19]. Mean­
while, chunking reviews by valence has a negative impact on product
attitude for consumers with low motivation to think, whereas for those
with high motivation to think, the role of review chunking on product
attitude is contingent on the order in which chunks are presented [15].
Prior studies have also investigated how the order in which items are
presented in reviews affects consumer perceptions, decisions, and atti­
tudes. For example, researchers have found that presenting negative
reviews before positive ones result in lower levels of trust and willing­
ness to book a hotel than when positive reviews are presented first [20].
For search products, reviews in which attribute-based content is pre­
sented first are more useful and easier to comprehend than reviews in
which experience-based content is presented first. By contrast, for
experience products, reviews in which experience-based content is
presented first are more useful and easier to comprehend [19]. In
addition, presenting reviews based on product attributes first can reduce
consumer’s decision time and yield greater decision satisfaction than
presenting reviews based on usage experience first [16].
A few interface design factors have also been suggested to influence
consumers’ attitude formation. Researchers have found, for example,
that displaying review text using an easy-to-read (vs. difficult-to-read)
font can make reviewers more credible and consequently increase the
impact of reviews on consumer evaluations [17]. Firm-highlighted re­
views can attract consumer attention, but the impact of such high­
lighting on increased consumption is still contingent on company
reputation and review strength [21]. Reviews presented in a story-based
format (rather than an information-based format) lead to a stronger
intention to try the product [22].
As summarized above, scholars have examined the impacts of
various presentation formats on consumers’ perceptions and behaviors.
However, the format of a review not only plays a significant role in
shaping readers’ perceptions but may also affect the behavior of review
writers. So far, no study has examined whether and how review format
may influence reviewer writers’ behavior and the textual content they
compose.
2.2. Linguistic analysis of online reviews
An emerging trend in online review research is investigating the
impact of linguistic nuances of review texts. Most such studies focus on
the impacts of reviews texts’ various linguistic features. For example,
researchers have found that affective content in online product reviews
can influence review helpfulness [23–27], reviewer credibility [18], and
online retailer conversion rates [28]. Researchers have also found that
consumer attitudes toward a product can be influenced by linguistic
styles used in the review texts, such as abstract versus concrete [29],
figurative versus literal [30,31], implicit endorsement versus explicit
[32], and subjective versus objective [33]. Moreover, attitudes can be
affected even by such linguistic devices in review texts as first-person or
third-person pronouns [34,35] and boosters versus attenuators [36].
Consumer perceptions of reviewer credibility may be affected by the
S. Lu et al.
usage of dispreferred markers (e.g., “I’ll be honest,” “God bless it”) [18]
and perceptions of review helpfulness can be influenced by action/­
reaction explanations (e.g., “I chose the product because…” vs. “I love
the product because…”) [25].
In addition, prior studies have suggested that the language people
use when composing reviews is affected by nuanced factors such as the
characteristics of the review system or even environmental factors. Re­
views that are composed on mobile devices, for example, are found to be
more emotional and specific but less extreme than those composed using
personal computers [37]. Reviewers are more likely to use concrete
language if the review system discloses their identity and status infor­
mation or imposes a minimum length requirement [38]. Recent studies
have found that even environmental variables such as air pollution level
may have negative effects on the depth, vividness, and comprehen­
siveness of online reviews [39,40].
2.3. Foreground-Background structure in narratives
As two-sided reviews include both favorable and unfavorable infor­
mation, the relative prominence of the positive and negative content in a
review may directly shape reader responses. In this study, we resort to
narrative research in linguistics to analyze the effect of review format on
the prominence of various utterances in a review. In early studies, lin­
guists distinguished narratives in a discourse as either “storyline” versus
“non-storyline” information or “backbone” versus “supportive” infor­
mation [41]. Later, the dichotomy of “foreground” and “background”
information was introduced [13,14]. Foreground information, which is
“more central or salient or important to the development of the
discourse theme” ([42], p. 89), provides the main points of a text [43].
By contrast, background information refers to the part “which does not
immediately and crucially contribute to the speaker’s goal, but which
merely assists, amplifies or comments on it” ([43], p. 280). In commu­
nications, receivers expend their linguistic energy on foreground infor­
mation first and process background information only if and when there
is a surplus of energy [14].
As the correct grounding of foreground and background information
is critical to understanding discourse [44], various linguistic markers
such as independent (vs. dependent) clauses [42], verbs of high (vs. low)
transitivity [43], and ACs2 [12] are used by writers of well-formed texts
to help readers identify foreground information correctly [41,44].
3. Hypothesis development
3.1. Effect of review format and content order on reader’s attention
allocation
In this research, we focus on the effects of review format because the
format may affect the extent to which ACs appear in review texts. In
normal narratives, people often use conjunctions to concatenate multi­
ple clauses. More specifically, they tend to use an AC to connect two
clauses when the latter clause (post-AC clause) expresses the opposite
meanings of the previous clause (pre-AC clause) [45,46]. Widely used in
narratives texts [47], ACs such as “but,” “however,” “only,” “yet,”
“nevertheless,” and “despite this” [11] can explicitly mark the rela­
tionship between adjacent units of text [47,48], providing semantic
opposition, denial-of-expectation, or topic change [49].
When composing two-sided reviews, reviewers aim to cover both the
advantages and disadvantages of a product. As a result, such reviews
inevitably consist of evaluations of opposite valence. In the MN format,
reviewers need to input their comments in a single text box. Because of
ingrained habits of rhetorical expression, most people find it natural or
2 5
Conjunctions are cohesive devices that clarify the relationship between text
units, which can be categorized into four major types, namely, additive,
adversative, causal, and temporal (Halliday and Hasan, 1976).
3
Information & Management 58 (2021) 103554
even compulsory to use ACs such as “but” or “however” to connect
segments of opposite valence [10,11]. By contrast, reviewers in the DN
format are asked to comment on the positive and the negative aspects in
two separate text boxes, the usage of ACs is thus much less needed.
According to Dry [50], the presence of an AC in a narrative causes the
narrative that follows (i.e., the post-AC clause) to be more prominent
than what came before (i.e., the pre-AC clause). Therefore, when an AC
is used in a two-sided review, the content of the post-AC clause will be
interpreted as foreground information and that of the pre-AC clause as
background information.3 More specifically, when a two-sided review is
composed in the pro-con order (i.e., the positive content placed in the
pre-AC clause and the negative content in the post-AC clause), the
favorable comments will be interpreted as background information and
the unfavorable comments as foreground information. When a
two-sided review is composed in the con-pro order (i.e., the negative
content placed in the pre-AC clause and the positive content in the
post-AC clause), it is the other way around. By contrast, if there is no AC
in a two-sided review, the processing of positive and negative comments
will not be affected by their foreground or background status.
Previous research has found that content processed as foreground
information will attract more attention than content interpreted as
background [14]. Therefore, when AC is used in a two-sided review,
readers’ attention allocated to the favorable and unfavorable comments
is shaped by whether the information is interpreted as foreground or
background. In the pro-con order, the presence of AC and its accompa­
nying grounding process will reduce the attention allocated to the
favorable comments (the background information) and increase the
attention to the negative evaluations (the foreground information). In
the con-pro order, AC’s effects would be the other way around.
In this research, we use the proportion of attention allocated to
positive content in contrast to negative content4 to describe how people
direct their attention in a two-sided review. Different from the absolute
measure of attention [21,45,51], the proportional measure reflects the
relative degree of attention readers pay to the positive as opposed to the
negative content.5 According to the discussion above, in the pro-con
order, the presence of AC will shift the proportion of readers’ atten­
tion in favor of the negative content. Nonetheless, in the con-pro order,
the presence of AC will shift the proportion of readers’ attention in favor
of the positive content. We therefore propose:
H1: Content order moderates the effect of review format on the proportion
of attention allocated to positive content. More specifically,
H1a: When a two-sided review is presented in pro-con order, the pro­
portion of attention allocated to positive content is smaller when the review is
written in the MN format than when it is written in the DN format.
H1b: When a two-sided review is presented in con-pro order, the pro­
portion of attention allocated to positive content is larger when the review is
written in the MN format than when it is written in the DN format.
In addition, the effect size of review format may differ in variant
order of content presentation. Previous studies have found that negative
information has a stronger influence on purchasing decisions than pos­
itive information [52,53]. Negative information “evokes strong and rapid
3
We acknowledged that in reality the positive and negative comments in a
two-sided review composed in the MN format might be expressed in a frag­
mentary manner. Nevertheless, to make a controlled comparison between the
MN and DN formats, this study examines two-sided reviews in which the pos­
itive and negative comments, respectively, are aggregated and only one AC is
used.
4
As the sum of proportions of attention paid to the positive and negative
content is 100%, the increase of the proportion of attention allocated to positive
content is always equal to the decrease of the proportion of attention allocated
to negative content. For brevity, we use only “the proportion of attention
allocated to positive content” in subsequent discussions.
The variable is a proportion between 0 and 1. A value of 1 means readers
pay attention only to positive content; a value of 0 means readers pay attention
only to negative content.
S. Lu et al.
Fig. 2. Conceptual model.
physiological, cognitive, and emotional responses” ([54], p. 67), and con­
sumers treat negative information as more diagnostic of a product’s
quality [29,55,56]. Therefore, in the pro-con order, the presence of ACs
amplifies the influence of negative content, which is more influential
than the positive content; nevertheless, in the con-pro order, the pres­
ence of ACs magnifies the effect of positive content, which is relatively
less influential. As a result, even though the presence of ACs in either
order may increase the proportion of readers’ attention paid to the
content in the post-AC clause, the effect size will be more significant in
the pro-con order than in the con-pro order. Based on this notion, we
propose:
H2: The effect of review format on the proportion of attention allocated to
positive content in a two-sided review is stronger for the pro-con order than
for the con-pro order.
3.2. Effect of review format and content order on product attitude
According to Feldman et al. [57], the input information is diagnostic
only when it is accessible in working memory. In other words, the more
accessible the information in working memory, the more likely it will be
used as input into people’s judgments or choices about a product [56].
Meanwhile, psychologists have also found that the maintenance of in­
formation in working memory relies heavily on attention [58]. As dis­
cussed before, when two-sided reviews are composed in the pro-con
order, readers of reviews written in the MN (vs. DN) format will allocate
a smaller proportion of their attention to the positive content and make
it less accessible in working memory, eventually inducing more negative
product attitudes. In the similar vein, when two-sided reviews are
composed in the con-pro order, as readers of reviews written in the MN
(vs. DN) format will pay a larger proportion of their attention to the
positive content, and their product attitudes will be more positive. Thus,
we posit:
H3: Content order moderates the effect of review format on consumers’
product attitudes. More specifically,
H3a: When a two-sided review is presented in pro-con order, consumers’
product attitudes will be more negative when the review is written in the MN
format than when it is written in the DN format.
H3b: When a two-sided review is presented in con-pro order, consumers’
product attitudes will be more positive when the review is written in the MN
format than when it is written in the DN format.
H4: The proportion of attention allocated to positive content in a two-
sided review mediates the effect of review format on product attitude.
H2 proposes that content order moderates the effect size of review
format on the proportion of reader’s attention paid to positive content,
which further mediates the effect of review format on product attitude.
Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that this interactive effect will be
passed on to product attitude as well. Thus, we posit:
H5: The effect of review format on consumers’ product attitudes is
stronger when the review is in pro-con order than when it is in con-pro order.
The conceptual model is summarized in Fig. 2.
4
Information & Management 58 (2021) 103554
4. Research methods and results
We ran one online experiment (Study 1) and two laboratory exper­
iments (Study 2 and Study 3) to test our hypotheses. Study 1 examined
the assumption that review format has a significant impact on reviewers’
likelihood of using ACs in review texts. Study 2 examined the interactive
effects of review format and content order on the proportion of attention
allocated to positive content (H1 and H2) and consumer product atti­
tudes (H3 and H5) as well as the mediating role played by the proportion
of attention allocated to positive content (H4). Study 3 excluded an
alternative explanation, that is, whether or not the observed differences
between the MN and DN formats are induced by other interface design
features. The detailed design and the results of each study are elaborated
below.
4.1. Study 1
The goal of Study 1 is to verify whether people’s likelihood of using
ACs when composing product reviews can be affected by review format.
4.1.1. Experimental design and stimuli
Study 1 adopted a single-factor (format: MN vs. DN) between-
subjects design. We invited participants to review an online learning
platform, which they were required to use during the pandemic. We
created web pages with slightly different input interfaces for the two
experimental conditions. In the MN condition, participants were asked
to first give the platform a numeric rating (seven-point scale) and then
input their evaluations of the software’s pros and cons in one single text
box. In the DN condition, they were asked to rate the platform first and
then evaluate its strength and weakness in two separate text boxes
labeled “Pros” and “Cons,” respectively. The instructions and other web
page layout features (such as font and page margins) were kept identical
across the two conditions.
4.1.2. Measure
A lexical list of ACs were first compiled based on Halliday and
Hasan’s research [10]. A review is coded “With AC” if one or more ACs
from that list were found in that review; otherwise, it is coded “Without
AC.” Two graduate students who were unaware of the research design
were invited to do the coding independently. If the classification opin­
ions of two coders were inconsistent, a third graduate student who was
also unaware of the research design was invited to break a tie. Cohen’s
kappa statistics is 0.908, indicating a high inter-coder agreement [59].
4.1.3. Participants and procedure
One hundred and sixty-five students (63 males and 102 females)
from a public university in China were recruited for monetary
compensation of CNY 10 (about US$1.50). They were between 18 and
23 years old (M = 19), and all had used the required online learning
platform at least two hours per week in the recent semester.
The experiment was completed online. All instructions, stimuli, and
questionnaires were administered using an online survey system.
S. Lu et al.
Table 1
Descriptive statistics (Study 1).
Experimental groups N With AC Without AC
MN 76 58 18
DN 74 3 71
Participants were randomly assigned to one of two experimental groups.
To motivate our participants to take the task seriously, we informed
them that authors of high-quality reviews would receive an additional
cash bonus of up to CNY 10.6
4.1.4. Results and discussion
The purpose of Study 1 is to verify whether reviewers are more likely
to use ACs in the MN format than in the DN format. Among the 165
reviews composed by the participants, there are 15 one-sided reviews
(all from the MN condition; none of them used ACs) and 150 two-sided
ones. Because H1 hypothesizes the difference between MN and DN
formats for two-sided reviews only, we eliminated those one-sided re­
views from further analysis.7 Among the remaining 150 reviews, 76
were composed in the MN format and 74 in the DN format. The two
conditions did not differ significantly in terms of numeric rating (MMN =
5.05, MDN = 4.99, p = 0.691) and review length, measured by the
number of Chinese characters (MMN = 144, MDN = 148, p = 0.626).
As shown in Table 1, 58 of 76 (76.3%) reviews written in the MN
format were coded as “With AC.” A further examination revealed that all
ACs were used to connect positive and negative evaluations. Only 3 of 74
(4.1%) reviews written in the DN format were coded as “With AC.” The
result of a chi-square test showed that ACs were significantly more likely
to be used in reviews written in the MN format than those written in the
DN format (p < 0.001).
In addition, 73 of the 76 (96.1%) reviews written in the MN format
adopted the pro-con order, providing some anecdotal evidence that the
majority of two-sided reviews are composed in pro-con (rather than con-
pro) order.
4.2. Study 2
The goal of Study 2 is to examine the interactive effect of review
format and content order on the proportion of attention allocated to
positive content (H1 and H2) and consumer product attitudes (H3 and
H5), as well as the mediating effect of the proportion of attention allo­
cated to positive content (H4).
4.2.1. Experimental design and stimuli
Study 2 adopted a 2 (format: MN vs. DN) × 2 (content order: pro-con
vs. con-pro) full-factorial between-subjects design.
We chose reviews for portable hard disk in different formats as the
experimental stimuli for two reasons. First, the portable hard disk is an
experience product [60], as consumers cannot thoroughly evaluate the
product before purchasing. Prior research has shown that
word-of-mouth communications have a greater effect on consumer
purchase decisions for experience products than for search products
[61]. Second, the portable hard disk is a product that was likely to be
familiar to and widely used by our participants; therefore, they would be
able to understand the review content.
In all conditions, participants were asked to read three two-sided
6
After the experiment, all participants received CNY 10 as bonus.
7 A total of 151 undergraduate students (38 male, 113 female) from a
We performed some additional analyses on the complete data set containing
the 15 one-sided reviews as a robustness test. The chi-square test showed that
ACs were still significantly more likely to be used in reviews written in the MN
format than in those written in the DN format (chi-square (1) = 62.39, p <
0.001). Therefore, removing these one-sided reviews did not make significant
difference.
5
Information & Management 58 (2021) 103554
reviews. In some previous studies, only a single review was presented
(e.g., [4,5]); however, as consumers in the real world usually read more
than one review before making purchase decisions, we decided to pre­
sent participants with multiple reviews.
We first identified product attributes (excluding price) from a large
number of actual online consumer reviews. As a pretest, 24 graduate
students were recruited to rate the importance of these attributes, and on
the basis of the results, six of the most important attributes were
selected: disk speed, capacity, enclosure material, cooling, weight, and
size.
To enhance the perceived realism of the experimental stimuli, each
prepared review consisted of positive comments on one product attri­
bute and negative comments on one product attribute. The six product
attributes were then split into three groups to ensure that there was no
significant difference among them in their average importance for
judgment. Another pretest (n = 25) showed that all three reviews were
all easy to understand and there was no significant difference among
them (p = 0.573). Review understandability was measured by a single
item, “Is this review easy to understand?” (1 = do not understand at all,
7 = understand very much), adapted from [62].
For each condition, we created an image simulating a screenshot of
an online review website. To control for the effect of other product in­
formation (e.g., price and brand) on product attitude, we blurred the
zones irrelevant to our research, using Adobe Photoshop Gaussian Blur
tools, so that only the review text and product specification were clearly
visible (see Appendix A). In the DN condition, there were two separate
paragraphs in each review, one labeled “Pros” and the other “Cons” for
the positive and negative content, respectively. In the MN condition,
positive and negative contents in each review were concatenated with
ACs (e.g. “but” or “however”) and were presented in a single paragraph.
Content order was manipulated by varying the sequence of positive and
negative content in each review.
4.2.2. Measures
Product attitude was measured using a four-item seven-point se­
mantic differential scale [63]. The question was asked, "What do you
think about this product?" Participants ranked the product on these four
seven-point scales: (1) 1 = very bad and 7 = very good; (2) 1 = very
disliked and 7 = very liked; (3) 1 = very unpleasant and 7 = very
pleasant; (4) 1 = very unfavorable and 7 = very favorable. The Cron­
bach’s alpha of product attitude was 0.90, which met the benchmark of
0.70 [64].
The proportion of attention allocated to positive content was oper­
ationalized by the percentage of attributes positively evaluated out of all
attributes a participant could correctly recall after reading the three
reviews (percentage of positive attributes recalled). Attribute recall has
been used in the literature as a proxy for attention and short-term
memory [15,65]. Participants were asked to recall product attributes
mentioned in the three reviews and to indicate whether those recalled
attributes had received a positive or negative evaluation. Two graduate
students who were unaware of the research design were recruited to
assess participants’ free-recall responses by checking whether the
recalled attributes were indeed mentioned in the reviews and whether
the recalled evaluation valence of a recalled attribute was consistent
with its actual valence. If the two judges disagreed, a third judge, who
was also unaware of the research design, determined whether the
recalled information was correct. Cohen’s kappa statistics is 0.895,
suggesting a good inter-rater reliability [59].
4.2.3. Participants and procedure
public university participated in the experiment for monetary compen­
sation of CNY 10 (about US$1.50). The participants were between 18
and 30 years old (Mage = 23), and all had online shopping experiences.
The experiment was conducted in a behavior lab during a 20-minute
session for each participant. All instructions, stimuli, and questionnaires
S. Lu et al. Information & Management 58 (2021) 103554

Table 2
Descriptive statistics (Study 2).
Experimental groups Percentage of positive attributes recalled Percentage of negative attributes recalled Product attitude
N Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD)

Pro-Con MN 38 37.0% (0.28) 63.0% (0.28) 3.57 (1.00)

DN 36 57.2% (0.27) 42.8% (0.27) 4.13 (0.86)
Con-Pro MN 39 49.7% (0.20) 50.3% (0.20) 4.17 (0.86)
DN 38 50.1% (0.20) 49.9% (0.20) 4.10 (1.12)

Table 3
ANCOVA results (Study 2).
Percentage of positive Product
attributes recalled attitude
F p-value F p-value

Review format 7.97 0.005 2.61 0.108

Content order 0.65 0.423 4.26 0.041
Review format * content order 6.74 0.010 4.12 0.044
Covariate: Gender 1.19 0.278 0.27 0.605
Covariate: Age 2.63 0.107 1.95 0.165

were prepared in Chinese. They were administered using an online

survey platform. On arrival, participants were asked to imagine that
they wanted to buy a portable hard disk for themselves and that they
were about to read three customer reviews for a particular model
captured from a real-world website. They were then randomly assigned
to one of the four conditions. After reading the reviews, participants
were asked to rate their attitudes about the product and to complete the
free-recall task. Finally, participants filled out demographic information Fig. 3. Interaction between review format and content order on product atti­
and were debriefed, thanked, and dismissed. tude (Study 2).

4.2.4. Results and discussion
Table 2 summarizes the descriptive statistics for each experimental
group.
A two-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)8 was performed to test
the interactive effect of review format and content order on the per­
centage of positive attributes recalled. As shown in Table 3, after con­
trolling for the effect of gender (p = 0.278) and age (p = 0.107), the
interactive effect between review format and content order was signif­
icant (p = 0.010). More specifically, when two-sided reviews were
presented in pro-con order, a smaller percentage of positive attributes
was recalled in the MN format than in the DN format (p < 0.001).
Therefore, H1a was supported. By contrast, when reviews were pre­
sented in con-pro order, the difference in the percentage of positive at­
tributes recalled was not significant (p = 0.944). Therefore, H1b was not
supported.
We then examined H2 by comparing the absolute values of the
regression coefficients of review format in the pro-con and con-pro
conditions [66]. The difference was statistically significant (βpro-con =
0.813, βcon-pro = 0.102, p = 0.007). Therefore, H2 was supported.
Next, a two-way ANCOVA was performed to test the interactive ef­
fect of review format and content order on product attitude. As shown in
Table 3 and Fig. 3, the interactive effect between review format and
content order was significant (p = 0.044). More specifically, when two-
sided reviews were presented in pro-con order, product attitude in the
MN condition was significantly more negative than in the MN condition
(p = 0.015). Therefore, H3a was supported. By contrast, when reviews
were presented in con-pro order, even though product attitude in the DN
condition was slightly more negative than in the MN condition, the
difference was not significant (p = 0.736). Therefore, H3b was not
supported.
To examine the mediating effect of percentage of positive attributes
recalled, we also performed a mediated moderation analysis using the
PROCESS SPSS macro (Model 7; 10,000 iterations) [67]. As shown in
Fig. 4, when two-sided reviews were presented in pro-con order, the
mediation through percentage of positive attributes recalled was nega­
tive and significant (β = –0.24, 95% CI = –0.50 to –0.06). However,
when reviews were presented in con-pro order, the mediation of per­
centage of positive attributes recalled was not significant (β = –0.005,
95% CI = –0.11 to 0.11). Thus, H4 was partly supported.
H5 was examined by comparing the absolute values of the regression
coefficients of review format on product attitude in the pro-con and con-
pro conditions [66]. The difference was statistically significant (βpro-con
= 0.217, βcon-pro = 0.004, p = 0.024). Therefore, H5 was supported.
Study 2 not only examined the effect of review format on product
attitude but provided evidence to support our hypothesis that the per­
centage of positive attributes recalled plays a mediating role in that
relationship. In addition, the effect of review format was bounded by the
order in which positive and negative content was presented. Neverthe­
less, as illustrated by Fig. 1, when readers are reading two-sided reviews
presented in either the MN or DN format, is it possible that their
attention allocation and product attitude are also affected by other dif­
ferences in the presentation format besides the presence of AC? To rule
out this potential alternative explanation, we designed and ran Study 3.
4.3. Study 3

4.3.1. Experimental design and stimuli

8 Study 3 adopted a single-factor (format: MN vs. MN without ACs vs.
To verify whether or not ANOVA can be applied to the proportional data,
we drew a quantile-quantile (Q-Q) plot for and performed a Levene test on the DN) between-subjects design. To test whether other interface differences
dependent variable (percentage of positive attributes recalled). The results between the MN and DN formats may also have a significant impact on
showed that the distribution within each group meets the assumptions of readers’ attention allocation and product attitude, we added a new “MN
normality and homoscedasticity. Therefore, we can apply ANOVA on this without ACs” condition, which is almost identical to the original MN
variable. condition except that all ACs were removed from the review texts. By

6
S. Lu et al. Information & Management 58 (2021) 103554

Fig. 4. Results of the mediated moderation test (Study 2).

Table 4
Descriptive statistics (Study 3).
Percentage of positive attributes recalled Percentage of negative attributes recalled Product attitude
Experimental groups N Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD)

MN 53 45.2% (0.20) 54.8% (0.20) 4.11 (0.70)

MN without ACs 52 52.7% (0.20) 47.3% (0.20) 4.42 (1.06)
DN 52 57.3% (0.23) 42.7% (0.23) 4.67 (0.70)

Table 5
ANCOVA results (Study 3).
Percentage of positive attributes recalled Product attitude
F p-value F p-value

Review format 4.49 0.013 5.67 0.004

Covariate: Gender 0.08 0.779 0.27 0.603
Covariate: Age 0.31 0.576 0.01 0.917

comparing the conditions of “MN without ACs” and DN, we can check
whether any other interface difference between the MN and DN formats
may confound the results.
In Study 3, we decided to focus on reviews presented in pro-con order
only for two reasons. First, the results of Study 2 showed that the impact
of review format is significant only in reviews presented in pro-con
order. Therefore, we need only to rule out any alternative explana­
tions for reviews presented in this order. Second, the pro-con order is
generally accepted as the social norm when people talk about both the
advantages and disadvantages of something or someone.9 In previous
studies on two-sided reviews, for instance, the reviews were all pre­
sented in pro-con order [4,5]. In practice, pros were put before cons in
most two-sided reviews written in the MN format, as shown in the results
of Study 1; most websites adopting the DN format also place the label
“Pros” before “Cons.”10
We used desk lamps as the target product in this study to enhance the
generalizability of our findings. Using a procedure similar to the one
used in Study 2, we first identified nine essential product attributes: ease
of light adjustment, touch sensitivity, quality of lampstand, softness of
the lighting, flickering, cooling, height adjustability, quality of materials
used, and appearance. We then prepared three two-sided reviews, each
9
As anecdotal evidence, searching for “pros and cons” on Google returns
about 72,900,000 results whereas searching for “cons and pros” has only
636,000 results.
10
No rigorous research has been found to explain why people prefer to put
pros before cons in their reviews. One possible explanation is that in inter­
personal communications, it is considered polite to put positive comments (or
statements of agreement) before negative ones (or statements of disagreement),
[69] which makes the recipient more likely to accept the feedback [70]. The
ingrained habits of interpersonal communications may induce most reviewers
to adopt the pro-con order, even though they do not really need to be polite or
tactful about a product (or the seller).
consisting of positive comments on two attributes and negative com­
ments on another attribute, because previous research has shown that in
reality people write overwhelmingly positive reviews [68]. We inten­
tionally varied the percentage of positive versus negative content to
ensure that our findings were not affected by the ratio of positive and
negative content in a two-sided review. A pretest (n = 25) showed that
all three reviews were all easy to understand and that there was no
significant difference among them (p = 0.589).
For each condition, we created an image simulating a screenshot of
an online review website (see Appendix B). The stimuli in the MN and
DN conditions were similar to those used in Study 2. In the “MN without
ACs” condition, ACs were removed from all three review texts, whereas
everything else remained the same as in the MN condition. In all three
conditions, positive content was placed before the negative content.
4.3.2. Measures, participants, and procedure
The measurements of product attitude and the proportion of atten­
tion allocated to positive content were similar to those used in Study 2.
The Cronbach’s alpha of product attitude was 0.92 and the Cohen’s
kappa of attribute recall is 0.854, both suggesting good reliability [59,
64].
One hundred and sixty-one students (34 males and 127 females)
from a public university in China participated in the study for monetary
compensation of CNY 10 (about US$1.50). None of them had partici­
pated in Study 2. The participants were between 18 and 30 years old
(Mage = 22), and all of them had online shopping experiences. The
experiment was conducted in a behavior lab and the procedures were
similar to those of Study 2.
4.3.3. Results and discussion
Four of the 161 participants failed to recall any review content
correctly. They were removed as the proportion values cannot be
calculated, producing a final sample of 157. The descriptive statistics of

7
S. Lu et al.
each experimental condition are summarized in Table 4.
A one-way ANCOVA was performed to test the effect of review
format on the percentage of positive attributes recalled.11 As shown in
Table 5, after controlling for the effect of gender and age, the differences
among the three conditions were significant (F (2152) = 4.49, p =
0.013). Planned contrasts further showed that the percentage of positive
attributes recalled was significantly smaller in the MN condition than in
the DN condition (p = 0.014). Thus, H1a was supported. Meanwhile, the
difference between the “MN without ACs” and the DN conditions was
not significant (p = 0.533), suggesting that the observed difference be­
tween the MN and DN formats resulted mainly from the presence of ACs
and not from other design features.
Next, a one-way ANCOVA was performed to test the effect of review
format on product attitude. Table 5 shows that consumer product atti­
tudes differed significantly across the three conditions (F (2152) = 5.67,
p = 0.004). Planned contrasts further revealed that product attitude in
the DN condition was significantly more positive than in the MN con­
dition (p = 0.004). Therefore, H4a was supported. However, product
attitude did not differ significantly between the DN and the “MN without
ACs” conditions, lending further support to our conjecture that the dif­
ference between the DN and MN formats was induced mostly by the
presence of ACs.
5. General discussion
5.1. Summary of findings
Through three laboratory experiments, this research systematically
explored the effect of the format of two-sided reviews (MN vs. DN) on
reviewers’ narrative style and readers’ attitudes toward a product. We
showed that ACs are more likely to be used to connect positive and
negative evaluations in reviews written in the MN format than in re­
views written in the DN format. We then examined the effects of review
format on product attitude and the mediating effect of the proportion of
attention allocated to positive content. Further, we identified the
boundary condition of such effects by investigating the moderating role
of the order of pros and cons mentioned in the review.
Our research design helps exclude some alternative explanations for
the findings. First, is it possible that the observed differences in the
proportion of attention allocated to positive content and product atti­
tude between the MN and DN formats can be attributed to some other
differences than the use of ACs? To address this concern, we added a
third experimental condition, “MN without ACs,” in Study 3. Although
in reality, reviewers rarely choose not to use any AC in a two-sided re­
view (as shown in Study 1), the inclusion of this condition can preclude
the potential impact of other differences between the two formats. As
the differences between the “MN without ACs” and the DN conditions
were not significant, we ascertain that the cross-format differences were
induced by the presence of ACs in the review text rather than by other
design features.
Second, is it possible that the effect of review format on product
attitude is mediated by some alternative underlying mechanisms, such
as information processing fluency? The literature has found that an in­
crease in processing fluency can induce a more positive attitude toward
the product [69–71]. Does the format of two-sided reviews influence
product attitude because the DN format uses information chunking
(unlike the MN format), which helps readers predict the valence of
subsequent review content? We believe this alternative explanation can
also be excluded because if processing fluency is a mediator, as chunking
increases processing fluency, people in the DN condition should report a
11
We also drew a quantile-quantile (Q-Q) plot for and performed a Levene test
on the dependent variable. The results showed that the distribution within each
group meets the assumptions of normality and homoscedasticity. Therefore, we
can apply ANOVA on this variable.
8
Information & Management 58 (2021) 103554
more positive attitude than those in the “MN without AC” condition.
However, the results of Study 3 revealed that the two groups did not
differ significantly in product attitudes.12
5.2. Theoretical contributions
This research makes several theoretical contributions.
First, most previous studies on review format focus exclusively on the
potential influence on review readers [15,17,21]. Our research calls for
expanding the research scope from readers to composers. We propose
that certain design factors, especially those related to the format in
which reviewers compose the review, can induce them to write review
texts with nuanced but important differences (e.g., the use of ACs). It is
those differences in review texts (rather than the format per se) that play
a key role in affecting readers’ information processing. Our results show
that to build a thorough understanding of the effect of review format
researchers should also pay attention to the review generation stage and
investigate the impacts of review format on both the composer and the
reader.
Second, this research extends the current research stream on review
format by focusing on two-sided reviews. Despite the fact that two-sided
reviews are more credible and persuasive than one-sided reviews [5,6],
they have not been examined as widely as one-sided reviews. Most
previous studies of the format of online reviews analyze either positive
or negative reviews separately (e.g., [15,16,72]) rather than individual
reviews that contain both positive and negative content. Consumers may
respond very differently to a set of two-sided reviews containing both
pros and cons than to a set of one-sided reviews, each of which is either
exclusively positive or exclusively negative. In the case of one-sided
reviews, presenting negative reviews before positive ones can result in
lower levels of trust and willingness to pay than presenting positive
reviews first [20]. However, our research suggests that when two-sided
reviews are written in the MN format, putting cons before pros induces a
more positive product attitude than the converse.
Third, this research investigates the effect of ACs on online reviews in
depth and adds to the emerging literature analyzing online reviews from
a linguistic perspective [28,31,36]. Our results suggest that the mere
presence of ACs can play a salient role in altering the decision weights of
different segments of information in review texts, in turn shaping
readers’ product attitudes and shopping decisions. By showcasing the
effects of ACs, the research provides additional evidence for the notion
that readers of reviews are influenced by the concrete linguistic styles
used by individual reviewers [73,74].
Last, to the best of our knowledge, ours is the first research to apply
the theory of distinguishing foreground from background in narratives
to explain the effects of review format on consumer processing of review
content. This theory has been applied in linguistic studies on discourse
structure [13,14], tense [75], and lexical function [76]. Our research not
only extends it to the analysis of online review narratives but also
clarifies the boundary condition of the foreground-background structure
theory by examining the moderating effects of content order.
5.3. Practical implications
The findings of our research have significant practical implications
for online retailers or online review platforms. First, most e-commerce
websites still adopt the relatively simple MN format to display reviews.
Reviewers can write in a free-flow style when posting reviews. Our
research findings show that despite its ease of use, the MN format might
not be an optimal choice because reviewers’ rhetorical habit of using
ACs may cause unintended biases that ultimately influence readers’
product attitudes. In contrast, adopting a DN format that separates
positive and negative comments can effectively reduce this bias by
12
We appreciate the suggestion by an anonymous reviewer.
S. Lu et al. Information & Management 58 (2021) 103554

reducing the usage of ACs. Websites should therefore consider using a
template with headings “Pros and Cons” or “Strengths and Weaknesses”
so that reviewers can comment on the pros and cons of a product in
separate sections.
In addition, for the great volume of reviews already written and
published in the MN format, websites can use text mining technology to
optimize the presentation of review content. They can, for example,
follow BestBuy’s practice of applying text-mining algorithms to extract
favorable and unfavorable evaluations in review texts and display them
separately, thereby reducing the possible negative impact of rhetorical
elements such as ACs.
Appendix A. Experiment Stimuli Used in Study 2
(Product specifications and review texts were originally in Chinese. They
were translated into English for review purpose)
Fig. A1. Two-sided reviews in the MN format (pro-con order).
Fig. A2. Two-sided reviews in the DN format (pro-con order).
Fig. A3. Two-sided reviews in the MN format (con-pro order).
Fig. A4. Two-sided reviews in the DN format (con-pro order).

5.4. Limitations and future research

Our research has several limitations. First, we used only the experi­
ment method in this research, which may limit its external validity.
Future research may consider analyzing real-world product reviews
using econometric methods or conducting field experiments to corrob­
orate our findings.
Second, the review texts used as the experimental stimuli are not as
varied as those in the real world. For example, the reviews we used have
a larger proportion of positive content than negative content. In reality,
the negative content may make up a larger proportion or implicate some
critical product attributes. In such cases, the effect of review format on
product attitude could be less significant because of a floor effect. Future
studies may consider using a more comprehensive set of two-sided re­
views. In addition, although we used reviews of different products as Fig. A1. Two-sided reviews in the MN format (pro-con order).
stimuli in the experiments, all were consumer electronic products.
Future studies can use products in other categories to enhance the
generalizability of the findings. Moreover, consumers may see both two-
sided and one-sided reviews. It is still not clear whether one-sided re­
views presented in the DN format might be perceived differently from
those in the MN format. Also, some reviewers may still use ACs even in
the DN format. Future research should examine the impact of DN versus
MN formats in these contexts as well.
Third, this research compared only MN format and divided-by-
valence narrative format. In reality, merchants have other choices in
the design of the DN format. Reviews could, for example, be categorized
according to concrete product attributes applicable to a specific product
category or general aspects (such as performance and appearance)
applicable to most products. Future research can explore the impact of
those narrative formats as well.
Finally, this research has explored the effect of review format only on
consumer product attitudes. Future research can explore its impact on
other consumer perceptions, such as perceptions of the quality of the
review or the expertise of the reviewer. Fig. A2. Two-sided reviews in the DN format (pro-con order).

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Shouwang Lu: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis,

Writing – original draft. Lingyun Qiu: Conceptualization, Methodology,
Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing. Kanliang Wang: Project
administration, Funding acquisition, Resources, Supervision, Writing –
review & editing.

Declaration of Competing Interest

none.

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation

of China [grant numbers 71331007] and the Outstanding Innovative
Talents Cultivation Funded Programs 2020 of Renmin University of
Fig. A3. Two-sided reviews in the MN format (con-pro order).
China.

9
S. Lu et al.
Fig. A4. Two-sided reviews in the DN format (con-pro order).
Appendix B. Selected Experiment Stimuli Used in Study 3
(Product specifications and review texts were originally in Chinese.
They were translated into English for review purpose)
Fig. B1. Two-sided reviews in the MN format.
Fig. B2. Two-sided reviews in the “MN without ACs” format.
Fig. B3. Two-sided reviews in the DN format.
Fig. B1. Two-sided reviews in the MN format.
Fig. B2. Two-sided reviews in the “MN without ACs” format.
10
Information & Management 58 (2021) 103554
Fig. B3. Two-sided reviews in the DN format.
References
[1] Y. Chen, J. Xie, Online consumer review: word-of-mouth as a new element of
marketing communication mix, Manag. Sci. 54 (2008) 477–491, https://doi.org/
10.1287/mnsc.1070.0810.
[2] N. Sahoo, C. Dellarocas, S. Srinivasan, The impact of online product reviews on
product returns, Inf. Syst. Res. 29 (2018) 723–738, https://doi.org/10.1287/
isre.2017.0736.
[3] X. Lu, S. Ba, L. Huang, Y. Feng, Promotional marketing or word-of-mouth?
Evidence from online restaurant reviews, Inf. Syst. Res 24 (2013) 596–612, https://
doi.org/10.1287/isre.1120.0454.
[4] M.L. Jensen, J.M. Averbeck, Z. Zhang, K.B. Wright, Credibility of anonymous
online product reviews: a language expectancy perspective, J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 30
(2013) 293–324, https://doi.org/10.2753/mis0742-1222300109.
[5] A.E. Schlosser, Can including pros and cons increase the helpfulness and
persuasiveness of online reviews? The interactive effects of ratings and arguments,
J. Consum. Psychol. 21 (2011) 226–239, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jcps.2011.04.002.
[6] M. Cheung, C. Luo, C. Sia, H. Chen, Credibility of electronic word-of-mouth:
informational and normative determinants of on-line consumer recommendations,
Int. J. Electron. Commer. 13 (2009) 9–38, https://doi.org/10.2753/JEC1086-
4415130402.
[7] C.M.K. Cheung, D.R. Thadani, The impact of electronic word-of-mouth
communication: a literature analysis and integrative model, Decis. Support Syst. 54
(2012) 461–470, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2012.06.008.
[8] R. Filieri, F. McLeay, B. Tsui, Z. Lin, Consumer perceptions of information
helpfulness and determinants of purchase intention in online consumer reviews of
services, Inf. Manage. 55 (2018) 956–970, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
im.2018.04.010.
[9] D.D. Rucker, R.E. Petty, P. Briñol, What’s in a frame anyway?: a meta-cognitive
analysis of the impact of one versus two sided message framing on attitude
certainty, J. Consum. Psychol. (2008), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jcps.2008.01.008.
[10] M.A.K. Halliday, K. Hasan, Cohesion in English, Routledge (1976), https://doi.org/
10.4324/9781315836010.
[11] M.A. Shirazi, S.M. Mousavi Nadoushani, The locus of adversative conjunctions in
the research articles: have they niched or vanished? Sage Open 7 (2017) 1–6,
https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244017700946.
[12] E. Mcclure, E. Geva, The Development of the Cohesive Use of Adversative
Conjunctions in Discourse, Discourse Process 6 (1983) 411–432, https://doi.org/
10.1080/01638538309544575.
[13] P.J. Hopper, Aspect and Foregrounding in Discourse, in: (Ed) Talmy (Ed.), Syntax
Semant, Academic Press, New York, 1979, pp. 213–241.
[14] R.S. Tomlin, Coherence and Grounding in Discourse, John Benjamins, Amsterdam,
1987.
[15] J. Pang, L. Qiu, Effect of online review chunking on product attitude: the
moderating role of motivation to think, Int. J. Electron. Commer. 20 (2016)
355–383, https://doi.org/10.1080/10864415.2016.1121763.
[16] M. Li, C.-.H. Tan, K.-.K. Wei, K. Wang, Sequentiality of product review information
provision: an information foraging perspective, MIS Q 41 (2017) 867–892, https://
doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2017/41.3.09.
[17] Y. Huang, C. Li, J. Wu, Z. Lin, Online customer reviews and consumer evaluation_
The role of review font, Inf. Manage. 55 (2018) 430–440, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.im.2017.10.003.
[18] R. Hamilton, K.D. Vohs, A.L. McGill, We’ll be honest, this won’t be the best article
you’ll ever read: the use of dispreferred markers in word-of-mouth communication,
J. Consum. Res. 41 (2014) 197–212, https://doi.org/10.1086/675926.
S. Lu et al.
[19] L. Huang, C.H. Tan, W. Ke, K.K. Wei, Do we order product review information
display? How? Inf. Manage. 51 (2014) 883–894, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
im.2014.05.002.
[20] B.A. Sparks, V. Browning, The impact of online reviews on hotel booking intentions
and perception of trust, Tour. Manag. 32 (2011) 1310–1323, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tourman.2010.12.011.
[21] C. Yi, Z.J. Jiang, X. Li, X. Lu, Leveraging user-generated content for product
promotion: the effects of firm-highlighted reviews, Inf. Syst. Res. (2019)
isre.2018.0807. 10.1287/isre.2018.0807.
[22] A. Hamby, K. Daniloski, D. Brinberg, How consumer reviews persuade through
narratives, J. Bus. Res. 68 (2015) 1242–1250, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jbusres.2014.11.004.
[23] J.A.G. Folse, M. Porter III, M.B. Godbole, K.E. Reynolds, The effects of negatively
valenced emotional expressions in online reviews on the reviewer, the review, and
the product, Psychol. Mark. 33 (2016) 747–760, https://doi.org/10.1002/
mar.20914.
[24] J. Li, L. Zhan, Online persuasion: how the written word drives WOM -evidence
from consumer- generated product reviews, J. Advert. Res. 51 (2011) 239–258,
https://doi.org/10.2501/JAR-51-1-239-257.
[25] S.G. Moore, Attitude predictability and helpfulness in online reviews: the role of
explained actions and reactions, J. Consum. Res. 42 (2015) 30–44, https://doi.org/
10.1093/jcr/ucv003.
[26] D. Yin, S.D. Bond, H. Zhang, Anxious or angry? Effects of discrete emotions on the
perceived helpfulness of online reviews, MIS Q. Manag. Inf. Syst. 38 (2014)
539–560, https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2014/38.2.10.
[27] D. Yin, S.D. Bond, H. Zhang, Keep your cool or let it out: nonlinear effects of
expressed arousal on perceptions of consumer reviews, J. Mark. Res. 54 (2017)
447–463, https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.13.0379.
[28] S. Ludwig, K. De Ruyter, M. Friedman, E.C. Brüggen, M. Wetzels, G. Pfann, More
than words: the influence of affective content and linguistic style matches in online
reviews on conversion rates, J. Mark. 77 (2013) 87–103, https://doi.org/10.1509/
jm.11.0560.
[29] G.A.C. Schellekens, P.W.J. Verlegh, A. Smidts, Language abstraction in word of
mouth, J. Consum. Res. 37 (2010) 207–223, https://doi.org/10.1086/651240.
[30] A. Kronrod, S. Danziger, Wii will rock you!” The use and effect of figurative
language in consumer reviews of hedonic and utilitarian consumption, J. Consum.
Res. 40 (2013) 726–739, https://doi.org/10.1086/671998.
[31] L. Wu, H. Shen, A. Fan, A.S. Mattila, The impact of language style on consumers′
reactions to online reviews, Tour. Manag. 59 (2017) 590–596, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tourman.2016.09.006.
[32] G. Packard, J. Berger, How language shapes word of mouth’s impact, J. Mark. Res.
54 (2017) 572–588, https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.15.0248.
[33] S.Q. Liu, M. Ozanne, A.S. Mattila, Does expressing subjectivity in online reviews
enhance persuasion? J. Consum. Mark. 35 (2018) 403–413, https://doi.org/
10.1108/JCM-02-2017-2109.
[34] M. Antioco, K. Coussement, Misreading of consumer dissatisfaction in online
product reviews: writing style as a cause for bias, Int. J. Inf. Manag. 38 (2018)
301–310, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.10.009.
[35] F. Wang, S. Karimi, This product works well (for me): the impact of first-person
singular pronouns on online review helpfulness, J. Bus. Res. 104 (2019) 283–294,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.028.
[36] F.V. Ordenes, S. Ludwig, K. De Ruyter, D. Grewal, M. Wetzels, Unveiling what is
written in the stars: analyzing explicit, implicit, and discourse patterns of sentiment
in social media, J. Consum. Res. 43 (2017) 875–894, https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/
ucw070.
[37] S. Ransbotham, N.H. Lurie, H. Liu, Creation and consumption of mobile word of
mouth: how are mobile reviews different? Mark. Sci. 38 (2019) 773–792, https://
doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2018.1115.
[38] G. Aerts, T. Smits, P.W.J. Verlegh, The platform shapes the message: how website
design affects abstraction and valence of online consumer reviews, Decis. Support
Syst. 104 (2017) 104–112, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2017.10.006.
[39] J. Fang, L. Hu, X. Liu, V.R. Prybutok, Impact of air quality on online restaurant
review comprehensiveness, Electron. Commer. Res. (2020) 1–24, https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10660-020-09445-w.
[40] J. Fang, L. Hu, M.A. Hossin, J. Yang, Y. Shao, Polluted online reviews: the effect of
air pollution on reviewer behavior, Int. J. Electron. Commer. 23 (2019) 557–594,
https://doi.org/10.1080/10864415.2019.1655206.
[41] C. Unger, Genre, Relevance and Global Coherence, Palgrave Macmillan, UK,
London, 2006.
[42] R.S. Tomlin, Foreground-background Information and the syntax of subordination,
text - interdiscip, J. Study Discourse. (1985) 1–38.
[43] P.J. Hopper, S.A. Thompson, Transitivity in grammar and discourse, Language. 56
(1980) 251, https://doi.org/10.2307/413757.
[44] L.B. Jones, L.K. Jones, Multiple levels of information in discourse, in: Discourse
Stud. Mesoamerican Lang. (1979) 3–27.
[45] J.A. Krosnick, F. Li, D.R. Lehman, Conversational conventions, order of
information acquisition, and the effect of base rates and individuating information
on social judgments, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol 59 (1990) 1140–1152, 10.1037/0022-
3514.59.6.1140.
[46] D. Blakemore, Denial and contrast: a relevance theoretic analysis of but, Linguist.
Philos. 12 (1989) 15–37, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00627397.
11
Information & Management 58 (2021) 103554
[47] J.D. Murray, Connectives and narrative text: the role of continuity, Mem. Cognit.
25 (1997) 227–236, https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03201114.
[48] F. Torabi Asr, V. Demberg, Interpretation of discourse connectives is probabilistic:
evidence from the study of but and although, Discourse Process 6950 (2020),
https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2019.1700760.
[49] C. Umbach, Contrast and information structure: a focus-based analysis of but,
Linguistics 43 (2005) 207–232, https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2005.43.1.207.
[50] H.A. Dry, Foregrounding: an assessment (Eds), in: S.J.J. Hwang, W.R. Merrifield
(Eds.), Lang. Context Essays Robert Longacre, The Summer Institute of Linguistics
and The University of Texas at Arlington, Dallas, 1992, pp. 435–450.
[51] M. Eisend, Understanding two-sided persuasion: an empirical assessment of
theoretical approaches, Psychol. Mark. 24 (2007) 615–640, https://doi.org/
10.1002/mar.20176.
[52] S. Basuroy, S. Chatterjee, S.Abraham Ravid, How critical are critical reviews? The
box office effects of film critics, star power, and budgets, J. Mark. 67 (2003)
103–117, https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.67.4.103.18692.
[53] J.A. Chevalier, D. Mayzlin, The effect of word of mouth on sales: online book
reviews, J. Mark. Res. 43 (2006) 345–354, https://doi.org/10.1509/
jmkr.43.3.345.
[54] S.E. Taylor, Asymmetrical effects of positive and negative events: the mobilization-
minimization hypothesis, Psychol. Bull. 110 (1991) 67–85, https://doi.org/
10.1037/0033-2909.110.1.67.
[55] R.W. Mizerski, An attribution explanation of the disproportionate influence of
unfavorable information, J. Consum. Res. 9 (1982) 301–310, https://doi.org/
10.2307/2488625?refreqid=search-gateway:
16b3f38fabd7acc881f0f91c4bb6c853.
[56] P.M. Herr, F.R. Kardes, J. Kim, Effects of word-of-mouth and product-attribute
information on persuasion: an accessibility-diagnosticity perspective, J. Consum.
Res. 17 (1991) 454–462, https://doi.org/10.2307/2626839?refreqid=search-
gateway:baed4b49365ed800a36c4e97132983b1.
[57] J.M. Feldman, J.G. Lynch, Self-generated validity and other effects of measurement
on belief, attitude, intention, and behavior, J. Appl. Psychol. 73 (1988) 421–435,
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.73.3.421.
[58] N. Cowan, Attention and Memory: An Integrated Framework, Oxford University
Press, New York, 1995.
[59] J. Cohen, Statistical Power Analysis For the Behavioral Sciences, Routledge, United
Kingdom, Europe, 1977, https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203771587.
[60] P. Nelson, Advertising as information, J. Polit. Econ. 82 (1974) 729–754, https://
doi.org/10.1086/260231.
[61] C. Park, T.M. Lee, Information direction, website reputation and eWOM effect: a
moderating role of product type, J. Bus. Res. 62 (2009) 61–67, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.11.017.
[62] B. von Helversen, K. Abramczuk, W. Kopeć, R. Nielek, Influence of consumer
reviews on online purchasing decisions in older and younger adults, Decis. Support
Syst. 113 (2018) 1–10, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2018.05.006.
[63] R. Batra, M.L. Ray, Affective responses mediating acceptance of advertising,
J. Consum. Res. 13 (1986) 234–249, https://doi.org/10.1086/209063.
[64] J.C. Nunnally, I.H. Bernstein, Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1994
http://lccn.loc.gov/93022756.
[65] A.R. McConnell, S.J. Sherman, D.L. Hamilton, On-line and memory-based aspects
of individual and group target judgments, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 67 (1994)
173–185, https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.2.173.
[66] C.C. Clogg, E. Petkova, A. Haritou, Statistical methods for comparing regression
coefficients between models, Am. J. Sociol. 100 (1995) 1261–1293, https://doi.
org/10.1086/230638.
[67] A.F. Hayes, Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process
analysis : a regression-based approach, Guilford, New York (2013).
[68] N. Hu, J. Zhang, P.A. Pavlou, Overcoming the J-shaped distribution of product
reviews, Commun. ACM. 52 (2009), 144–4. 10.1145/1562764.1562800.
[69] N. Schwarz, H. Bless, F. Strack, G. Klumpp, H. Rittenauer-Schatka, A. Simons, Ease
of retrieval as information: another look at the availability heuristic, J. Pers. Soc.
Psychol. 61 (1991) 195–202, https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.2.195.
[70] N. Schwarz, Metacognitive experiences in consumer judgment and decision
making, J. Consum. Psychol. 14 (2004) 332–348, https://doi.org/10.1207/
s15327663jcp1404_2.
[71] N. Schwarz, H. Song, J. Xu, When thinking is difficult: metacognitive experiences
as information (Ed), in: M. Wanke (Ed.), Soc. Psychol. Consum. Behav., Psychology
Press, New York, 2009, pp. 201–223.
[72] L. Huang, C.-.H. Tan, W. Ke, K.-.K. Wei, Do we order product review information
display? How? Inf. Manage. 51 (2014) 883–894, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
im.2014.05.002.
[73] M. Antioco, K. Coussement, Misreading of consumer dissatisfaction in online
product reviews_ Writing style as a cause for bias, Int. J. Inf. Manag. 38 (2017)
301–310, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.10.009.
[74] A.X. Liu, Y. Xie, J. Zhang, It’s not just what you say, but how you say it: the effect
of language style matching on perceived quality of consumer reviews, J. Interact.
Mark. 46 (2019) 70–86, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2018.11.001.
[75] E. Lee, Pluperfect in discourse: when and why do we go back in time? J. Pragmat.
121 (2017) 76–90, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.10.001.
[76] F. Velde, The discourse motivation for split-ergative alignment in Dutch
nominalisations (and elsewhere), Pragmatics 24 (2014) 317–348.
S. Lu et al.
Shouwang Lu: Mr. Shouwang Lu is a Ph.D. student at the Department of Management
Science and Engineering, School of Business, Renmin University of China. His research
interests include user interface design of systems, online consumer behaviors, and online
customization.
Lingyun Qiu, corresponding author: Dr. Lingyun Qiu is an associate professor of In­
formation Systems at the Guanghua School of Management, Peking University, China. He
received his Ph.D. from the University of British Columbia. His research interests include
online consumer behavior, electronic commerce, human–computer interactions, and
recommendation agents. His works have been published on Journal of Management
12
Information & Management 58 (2021) 103554
Information Systems, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Journal of the Association
for Information Systems, Decision Support Systems, and so on.
Kanliang Wang: Dr. Kanliang Wang is a professor of Information Systems at the
Department of Management Science and Engineering, School of Business, Renmin Uni­
versity of China. He received his Ph.D. degree in Management Science & Engineering from
Xi’an Jiaotong University. He has co-authored in leading information systems journals,
such as MIS Quarterly, Management Science, Information & Management, Decision Support
Systems, The DATABASE, Electronic Commerce Research, Electronic Commerce Research and
Applications, and so on. His current research interests include digital commerce, crowd­
sourcing, and online system design.