This study examined the surface characteristics of helpful customer reviews posted on Amazon.com to understand the nature of electronic Word-of Mouth (eWOM). To investigate the surface characteristics of the helpfulness of customer reviews and whether the helpfulness and attention-grabbing power of the customer reviews are associated with the surface characteristics, a content analysis of Amazon.com customer reviews was conducted. We found that consumers considered a review helpful if it offered visually prominent cues that made it more convenient to determine the usefulness and helpfulness of the review. The results of this study further demonstrate the mediational effect of attention-grabbing power on the review helpfulness. Our findings suggest that what is communicated and how the information is communicated is crucial to improve credibility and attention-grabbing power in the online environment. The current study fills in the gaps by including information about the visual characteristics of customer reviews, how the visual characteristics influence individuals’ decision-making processes, and what visual attributes determine the “helpful” rating.

1. Alba, J., Lynch, J., Weitz, B., Janiszewski, C., Lutz, R., Sawyer, A., & Wood, S. (1997). Interactive home shopping: Consumer, retailer, and manufacturer incentives to participate in electronic marketplaces. Journal of Marketing, 61(3), 38–53. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299706100303
2. Allport, C. D., & Pendley, J. A. (2010). The impact of website design on the perceived credibility of internet financial reporting. Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance & Management, 17(3-4), 127–141. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/isaf.318
3. Apriliani, H., K. & Hudrasyah. (2018). The effect of convebtional customer habit: Touch, sight, smell on online written batik fabric. International Journal of Business and Economic Affairs, 3(5), 195-206. doi:https://doi.org/10.24088/ijbea-2018-35002
4. Bone, P. F. (1995). Word-of-mouth effects on short-term and long-term product judgments. Journal of Business Research, 32(3), 213–223. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-2963(94)00047-I
5. Brown, J. J., & Reingen, P. H. (1987). Social ties and word-of-mouth referral behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(3), 350–362. doi:https://doi.org/10.1086/209118
6. Bucy, E. P., Lang, A., Potter, R. F., & Grabe, M. E. (1999). Formal features of cyberspace: Relationships between web page complexity and site traffic. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(13), 1246–1256. doi:Chen, P.-Y., Wu, S.-y., & Yoon, J. (2004). The impact of online recommendations and consumer feedback on sales. In International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS), Washington, DC, WA.
7. Cheung, C. M.-Y., Sia, C.-L., & Kuan, K. K. (2012). Is this review believable? A study of factors affecting the credibility of online consumer reviews from an ELM perspective. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 13(8), 618-635. doi:https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00305
8. Clemons, E. K., Gao, G. G., & Hitt, L. M. (2006). When online reviews meet hyperdifferentiation: A study of the craft beer industry. Journal of Management Information Systems, 23(2), 149–171. doi:https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222230207
9. Dabholkar, P. A. (2006). Factors influencing consumer choice of a” rating web site”: An experimental investigation of an online interactive decision aid. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 14(4), 259–273. doi:https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679140401
10. Dellarocas, C. (2003). The digitization of word of mouth: Promise and challenges of online feedback mechanisms. Management Science, 49(10), 1407–1424. doi:https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.49.10.1407.17308
11. Everard, A., & Galletta, D. F. (2005). How presentation flaws affect perceived site quality, trust, and intention to purchase from an online store. Journal of Management Information Systems, 22(3), 56–95. doi:https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222220303
12. Fogg, B. J. (2003). Prominence-interpretation theory: Explaining how people assess credibility online. In CHI’03: Human Factors in Computing Systems, Fort Lauderdale, FL.
13. Gupta, P., & Harris, J. (2010). How e-WOM recommendations influence product consideration and quality of choice: A motivation to process information perspective. Journal of Business Research, 63(9-10), 1041–1049. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.01.015
14. Hartono, S. S. (2019). The effect of expected and perceived service quality on customer satisfaction: Optical retail in Indonesia. International Journal of Business and Administrative Studies, 5(2), 186-198. doi:https://dx.doi.org/10.20469/ijbas.5.10002-4
15. 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(4), 454–462. doi:https://doi.org/10.1086/208570
16. Hutton, A. P., Miller, G. S., & Skinner, D. J. (2003). The role of supplementary statements with management earnings forecasts. Journal of Accounting Research, 41(5), 867–890. doi:https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1475-679X.2003.00126.x
17. Kang, C. Z., & Ogawa, I. (2017). Online shopping behavior of Chinese and Japanese consumers. Journal of Administrative and Business Studies, 3(6), 305-316. doi:https://doi.org/10.20474/jabs-3.6.5
18. Karakaya, F., & Barnes, N. G. (2010). Impact of online reviews of customer care experience on brand or company selection. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 27(5), 447-457. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/07363761011063349
19. Kleinmuntz, D. N., & Schkade, D. A. (1993). Information displays and decision processes. Psychological Science, 4(4), 221–227. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1993.tb00265.x
20. Lang, A. (2000). The limited capacity model of mediated message processing. Journal of Communication, 50(1), 46–70. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02833.x
21. Li, X., & Hitt, L. M. (2008). Self-selection and information role of online product reviews. Information Systems Research, 19(4), 456–474. doi:https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1070.0154
22. Mudambi, S. M., & Schuff, D. (2010). Research note: What makes a helpful online review? A study of customer reviews on amazon. com. MIS Quarterly, 34(1), 185–200. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/20721420
23. Princeton Survey Research Associates. (2002). A matter of trust: What users want from web sites. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/38TQmHg
24. Robins, D., & Holmes, J. (2008). Aesthetics and credibility in web site design. Information Processing & Management, 44(1), 386–399. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2007.02.003
25. Shen, B., & Bissell, K. (2013). Social media, social me: A content analysis of beauty companies’ use of facebook in marketing and branding. Journal of Promotion Management, 19(5), 629–651. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/10496491.2013.829160
26. Shugan, S. M. (1980). The cost of thinking. Journal of Consumer Research, 7(2), 99–111. doi:https://doi.org/10.1086/208799
27. Steffes, E. M., & Burgee, L. E. (2009). Social ties and online word of mouth. Internet Research, 19(1), 42-59. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/10662240910927812
28. Tseng, S., & Fogg, B. (1999). Credibility and computing technology. Communications of the ACM, 42(5), 39–44. doi:https://doi.org/10.1145/301353.301402
29. Warnick, B. (2004). Online ethos: Source credibility in an “authorless” environment. American Behavioral Scientist, 48(2), 256–265. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764204267273
30. Wathen, C. N., & Burkell, J. (2002). Believe it or not: Factors influencing credibility on the web. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(2), 134–144. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.10016

Jung, W. S., & Rhee, E. S. (2019). Window dressing effects of online information: A content- analysis of the post-purchase reviews on Amazon.com. International Journal of Business and Administrative Studies, 5(6), 312-320. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.20469/ijbas.5.10001-6