KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi / 2026 / Sayı: 56

Çevrimiçi Yorumdan Algılanan Fayda: Ürün Kullanım Süresinin ve Yorumun İnandırıcılığının Rolü

Perceived Helpfulness of Online Review: The Role of Product Usage Period and Review’s Credibility

Raife Meltem Yetkin Özbük(AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-2014-1850
Sayfa
97–122
Yayın Tarihi
2020-08-30
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Ayrıca, ürün kullanım süresinin çevrimiçi yorumda belirtilmesi algılanan faydayı yorumun inandırıcılığı aracılıyla etkilemektedir.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Ürün ve hizmetler hakkında çevrimiçi (online) yorum okuyanların, bu yorumların doğruluğu ve tarafsızlığına dair şüpheleri her geçen gün artmaktadır.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Bu kapsamda, çevrimiçi yorumda ürün kullanım süresinin yer almasının, okuyucunun yorumdan algıladığı fayda üzerindeki etkileri, bu etkinin olumlu ve olumsuz yorumlar için nasıl farklılaştığı ve yorumun inandırıcılığının bu etkideki aracılık rolü incelenmiştir.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Ayrıca, ürün kullanım süresinin çevrimiçi yorumda belirtilmesi algılanan faydayı yorumun inandırıcılığı aracılıyla etkilemektedir.
🔬Tür:Modelleme & Sayısal Simülasyon
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Çevrimiçi Yorum · Fayda · İnandırıcılık

Özet

Ürün ve hizmetler hakkında çevrimiçi (online) yorum okuyanların, bu yorumların doğruluğu ve tarafsızlığına dair şüpheleri her geçen gün artmaktadır. Bu sebeple, tüketicilerin bu yorumlara inanmasını ve faydalı bulmasını sağlamak amacıyla firmalar, çevrimiçi yorum yazanlardan yorumun gerçekçi olduğuna dair ipuçları sunmalarını istemektedir. Bu ipuçlarından biri olan ürün kullanım süresinin çevrimiçi yorumda belirtilmesi mevcut araştırmada ele alınmıştır. Bu kapsamda, çevrimiçi yorumda ürün kullanım süresinin yer almasının, okuyucunun yorumdan algıladığı fayda üzerindeki etkileri, bu etkinin olumlu ve olumsuz yorumlar için nasıl farklılaştığı ve yorumun inandırıcılığının bu etkideki aracılık rolü incelenmiştir. Bu amaçla, üç ön-araştırma ile çevrimiçi yorumun manipülasyonu sağlanmış; sonrasında ise dört farklı senaryonun yer aldığı denekler arası faktöriyel tasarım modeli uygulanmıştır. Yapılan analizler sonucunda ürün kullanım süresinin çevrimiçi yorumda yer almasının yorumdan algılanan faydayı önemli ölçüde arttırdığı görülmüştür. Olumsuz çevrimiçi yorumlarda ürün kullanım süresinin belirtilmesi algılanan faydayı olumlu yorumlarda belirtilmesine göre daha az etkilemektedir. Ayrıca, ürün kullanım süresinin çevrimiçi yorumda belirtilmesi algılanan faydayı yorumun inandırıcılığı aracılıyla etkilemektedir.

Abstract

Consumers are increasingly suspicious of the accuracy and objectivity of online reviews of products and services. Therefore, to make the consumers to believe in the online reviews and to perceive online reviews useful, firms suggest their consumers provide clues while writing online reviews. One of these clues, stating the presence of product usage period in online reviews, is addressed in the current research. Thus, the effect of stating the product usage period on the perceived usefulness of online reviews; how this effect differs for positive and negative ones, and the mediating role of the review credibility in this relationship were examined. For this purpose, the online review was manipulated with three pre-studies; afterwards, a between-subjects factorial experimental design model was developed with four different scenarios. As a result of the analysis, it was observed that stating the product usage period in online review significantly increases the perceived usefulness. Stating the product usage period in negative online reviews is less effective on the perceived usefulness of online reviews than in positive online reviews. In addition, the presence of product usage period in online review affects perceived usefulness by affecting the credibility of online review.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Özbük, R. M. Y. (2020). Çevrimiçi Yorumdan Algılanan Fayda: Ürün Kullanım Süresinin ve Yorumun İnandırıcılığının Rolü. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Sayı: 56, 97–122. https://doi.org/10.18070/erciyesiibd.703697

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (48)

  1. Agnihotri, A. ve Bhattacharya, S. (2016). Online review helpfulness: Role of qualitative factors. Psychology and Marketing. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20934
  2. Ansari, A., Essegaier, S. ve Kohli, R. (2000). Internet Recommendation Systems. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(3), 363–375. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.37.3.363.18779
  3. Baron, R. M. ve Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.
  4. Benedicktus, R. L., Brady, M. K., Darke, P. R. ve Voorhees, C. M. (2010). Conveying trustworthiness to online consumers: reactions to consensus, physical store presence, brand familiarity, and generalized suspicion. Journal of Retailing, 86(4), 322–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2010.04.002
  5. Bowerman, B. L., O'Connell, R. T. ve Hand, L. M. (2001). Business Statistics in Practice. McGraw-Hill.
  6. Casaló, L. V., Flavián, C., Guinalíu, M. ve 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.01.010
  7. Chen, J., Teng, L., Yu, Y. ve Yu, X. (2016). The effect of online information sources on purchase intentions between consumers with high and low susceptibility to informational influence. Journal of Business Research, 69(2), 467–475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.05.003
  8. Chen, Z. ve Lurie, N. H. (2013). Temporal Contiguity and Negativity Bias in the Impact of Online Word of Mouth. Journal of Marketing Research, 50(4), 463–476. https://doi.org/10.1509/0022-2437-50.4.463
  9. Cheng, Y. H. ve Ho, H. Y. (2015). Social influence’s impact on reader perceptions of online reviews. Journal of Business Research, 68(4), 883–887. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.11.046
  10. Felbermayr, A. ve Nanopoulos, A. (2016). The Role of Emotions for the Perceived Usefulness in Online Customer Reviews. Journal of Interactive Marketing. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2016.05.004
  11. Filieri, R. (2015). What makes online reviews helpful? A diagnosticity-adoption framework to explain informational and normative influences in e-WOM. Journal of Business Research, 68(6), 1261–1270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.11.006
  12. Gershoff, A. D., Mukherjee, A. ve Mukhopadhyay, A. (2004). Consumer Acceptance of Online Agent Advice: Extremity and Positivity Effects. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(1–2), 161–170. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp13-1&2_14
  13. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J. ve Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective. Pearson Education.
  14. Hamby, A., Daniloski, K. ve Brinberg, D. (2015). How consumer reviews persuade through narratives. Journal of Business Research, 68(6), 1242–1250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.11.004
  15. Hamilton, R. W. ve Thompson, D. V. (2007). Is There a Substitute for Direct Experience? Comparing Consumers’ Preferences after Direct and Indirect Product Experiences. Journal of Consumer Research. https://doi.org/10.1086/520073
  16. Hayes, A. (2013). Model Templates for PROCESS for SPSS and SAS. Nisan 13, 2017 tarihinde http://www.personal.psu.edu/jxb14/M554/specreg/templates.pdf adresinden alındı
  17. Hoch, S. J. (2002). Product Experience Is Seductive. Journal of Consumer Research. https://doi.org/10.1086/344422
  18. Ito, T. A., Larsen, J. T., Smith, N. K. ve Cacioppo, J. T. (1998). Negative information weighs more heavily on the brain: The negativity bias in evaluative categorizations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.75.4.887
  19. Jiménez, F. R. ve 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(3), 226–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2013.04.004
  20. Koo, D. (2015). The strength of no tie relationship in an online recommendation: Focused on interactional effects of valence, tie strength, and type of service. European Journal of Marketing, 49(7/8), 1163–1183. https://doi.org/10.1179/str.2006.53.4.005
  21. Lee, M., Rodgers, S. ve Kim, M. (2009). Effects of valence and extremity of eWOM on attitude toward the brand and website. Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 31(2), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/10641734.2009.10505262
  22. Li, H., Daugherty, T. ve Biocca, F. (2001). Characteristics of virtual experience in electronic commerce: A protocol analysis. Journal of Interactive Marketing. https://doi.org/10.1002/dir.1013
  23. Li, L., Lee, K. Y., Lee, M. ve Yang, S.-B. (2020). Unveiling the cloak of deviance: Linguistic cues for psychological processes in fake online reviews. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 87(February), 102468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102468
  24. MacKinnon, D. P. (2008). Introduction to Statistical Mediation Analysis. Routledge.
  25. Mafael, A., Gottschalk, S. A. ve Kreis, H. (2016). Examining Biased Assimilation of Brand-related Online Reviews. Journal of Interactive Marketing. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2016.06.002
  26. Malhotra, N. K. (2007). Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation, 5th Edition. Prentice-Hall, Inc, New Jersey, USA.
  27. Mert, M. (2016). Yatay Kesit Veri Analizi Bilgisayar Uygulamaları. Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık.
  28. Moore, S. G. (2015). Attitude predictability and helpfulness in online reviews: The role of explained actions and reactions. Journal of Consumer Research, 42(1), 30–44. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucv003
  29. Munzel, A. (2016). Assisting consumers in detecting fake reviews: The role of identity information disclosure and consensus. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 32, 96–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.06.002
  30. Nunnally, J. (1978), Psychometric Methods, New York: McGraw-Hill.
  31. Ozer, M. (2011). The moderating roles of prior experience and behavioral importance in the predictive validity of new product concept testing. Journal of Product Innovation Management. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2010.00784.x
  32. Pan, Y. ve Zhang, J. Q. (2011). Born Unequal: A Study of the Helpfulness of User-Generated Product Reviews. Journal of Retailing, 87(4), 598–612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2011.05.002
  33. Park, C. ve Lee, T. M. (2009a). Antecedents of Online Reviews’ Usage and Purchase Influence: An Empirical Comparison of U.S. and Korean Consumers. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23(4), 332–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2009.07.001
  34. Park, C. ve Lee, T. M. (2009b). Information direction, website reputation and eWOM effect: A moderating role of product type. Journal of Business Research, 62(1), 61–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.11.017
  35. Peng, L., Cui, G., Zhuang, M. ve Li, C. (2016). Consumer perceptions of online review deceptions: an empirical study in China. Journal of Consumer Marketing. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCM-01-2015-1281
  36. Purnawirawan, N., De Pelsmacker, P. ve Dens, N. (2012). Balance and Sequence in Online Reviews: How Perceived Usefulness Affects Attitudes and Intentions. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 26(4), 244–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2012.04.002
  37. Purnawirawan, N., Eisend, M., Pelsmacker, P. De ve Dens, N. (2015). A Meta-analytic Investigation of the Role of Valence in Online Reviews. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 31, 17–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2015.05.001
  38. Reimer, T. ve Benkenstein, M. (2016). Altruistic eWOM marketing: More than an alternative to monetary incentives. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.04.003
  39. Rozin, P. ve Royzman, E. B. (2001). Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0504_2
  40. Schlosser, A. E. (2011). Can including pros and cons increase the helpfulness and persuasiveness of online reviews? The interactive effects of ratings and arguments. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21(3), 226–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2011.04.002
  41. Singh, J. P., Irani, S., Rana, N. P., Dwivedi, Y. K., Saumya, S. ve Kumar Roy, P. (2017). Predicting the “helpfulness” of online consumer reviews. Journal of Business Research, 70, 346–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.08.008
  42. Sussman, S. W. ve Siegal, W. S. (2003). Informational influence in organizations: An integrated approach to knowledge adoption. Information Systems Research. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.14.1.47.14767
  43. Tabachnick, B. ve Fidell, L. (2013). Using Multivariate Statistics (International b.). New Jersey: Pearson.
  44. Wu, P. F. (2013). In search of negativity bias: An empirical study of perceived helpfulness of online reviews. Psychology and Marketing. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20660
  45. Wu, Y., Ngai, E. W. T., Wu, P. ve Wu, C. (2020). Fake online reviews: Literature review, synthesis, and directions for future research. Decision Support Systems, (February), 113280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2020.113280
  46. Zhang, L., Gao, Y. ve Zheng, X. (2020). Let’s Talk About This in Public: Consumer Expectations for Online Review Response. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1177/1938965519864864
  47. Bowerman, B. L., O'Connell, R. T. ve Hand, L. M. (2001). Business Statistics in Practice. McGraw-Hill.
  48. Wu, Y., Ngai, E. W. T., Wu, P. ve Wu, C. (2020). Fake online reviews: Literature review, synthesis, and directions for future research. Decision Support Systems, (February), 113280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2020.113280