为他人购物：在线评论的说服力有何不同？

›› 2019, Vol. 31 ›› Issue (2): 94-102.

为他人购物：在线评论的说服力有何不同？

张琴¹, 龚艳萍¹, 张晓丹²

1. 中南大学商学院, 长沙 410083;
2. 北京大学光华管理学院, 北京 100871

收稿日期:2016-09-29 出版日期:2019-02-28 发布日期:2019-03-07
通讯作者: 龚艳萍,中南大学商学院教授,博士生导师,博士
作者简介:张琴,中南大学商学院讲师,硕士生导师,博士;龚艳萍(通讯作者),中南大学商学院教授,博士生导师,博士;张晓丹,北京大学光华管理学院博士后,博士
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金青年项目（71302069）；国家自然科学基金重点项目（71532011）；国家自然科学基金面上项目（71272066

Buying for Others: Persuasiveness of Online Comments from Different Sources

Zhang Qin¹, Gong Yanping¹, Zhang Xiaodan²

1. Business School, Central South University, Changsha 410083;
2. Guanghua School of Management, Peking University, Beijing 100871

Received:2016-09-29 Online:2019-02-28 Published:2019-03-07

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

以建构水平理论为基础，自我锚定效应是否发生为解释机制，探讨购买情景中产品接收者发生变化时，不同信息源的在线评论说服力有何变化。研究发现，受心理距离匹配效应的影响，当产品接收者为关系亲密的他人时，模糊评论者与相似评论者的信息说服力大小一致，皆大于不相似评论者；而当产品接收者为关系较远的他人时，模糊评论者与不相似评论者的信息说服力一致，皆大于相似评论者。

关键词: 建构水平, 心理距离, 信息源, 说服力, 自我锚定效应

Abstract:

Drawing on construal level theory and egocentric anchoring effect, the authors examine the interplay of distance from closeness and distance from similarity on online reviews' persuasions. Two experiments revealed that, when they buy for close others, consumers are more likely to be persuaded by the comments of ambiguous and similar reviewers than those of dissimilar reviewers; when they buy for distant others, consumers are more likely to be persuaded by comments of ambiguous and dissimilar reviewers than those of similar reviewers. Egocentric anchoring effect is used to explain persuasiveness of comments from ambiguous reviewers.

Key words: construal level theory, psychological distance, source of comments, persuasion, egocentric anchoring effect

张琴, 龚艳萍, 张晓丹. 为他人购物：在线评论的说服力有何不同？[J]. , 2019, 31(2): 94-102.

Zhang Qin, Gong Yanping, Zhang Xiaodan. Buying for Others: Persuasiveness of Online Comments from Different Sources[J]. , 2019, 31(2): 94-102.

参考文献

[1] Solomon M. R. The Missing Link:Surrogate Consumers in the Marketing Chain[J]. Journal of Marketing, 1986,50(4):208-218.
[2] Gershoff A. D., Susan M. B., Patricia M. W. Recommendation or Evaluation? Task Sensitivity in Information Source Selection[J]. Journal of Consumer Research, 2001,28 (3):418-438.
[3] Chevalier J. A., Dina M. The Effect of Word of Mouth on Sales:Online Book Reviews[J]. Journal of Marketing Research, 2006,4(3):345-354.
[4] 郭恺强,王洪伟,赵月. 消费者通过在线声誉系统发表评论的前因:基于TAM的实证研究[J]. 管理评论, 2014,26(9):180-190.
[5] 马钦海,赵佳,张跃先,等. C2C环境下顾客初始信任的影响机制研究:网上购物经验的调节作用[J]. 管理评论, 2012,24(7):70-98.
[6] 杜学美,丁璟妤,谢志鸿,等. 在线评论对消费者购买意愿的硬性研究[J]. 管理评论, 2016,28(3):173-183.
[7] Naylor R. W., Lamberton C. P., Norton D. A. Seeing Ourselves in Others:Reviewer Ambiguity, Egocentric Anchoring, and Persuasion[J]. Journal of Marketing Research, 2011,48(3):617-631.
[8] Forman C., Ghose A. Wiesenfeld B. Examining the Relationship Between Review and Sales:The Role of Review Identity Disclosure[J]. Electronic Markets Information Systems Research, 2008,19(3):291-313.
[9] Brock T. C. Communicator-Recipient Similarity and Decision Change[J]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1965,1(6):650-654.
[10] Brown J. J., Peter H. R. Social Ties and Word-of-Mouth Referral Behavior[J]. Journal of Consumer Research, 1987,14(3):350-362.
[11] Krishnamurthi L. Conjoint Models of Family Decision Making[J]. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 1988,5(3):185-198.
[12] Wooten D. B. Qualitative Steps Toward an Expanded Model of Anxiety in Gify-Giving[J]. Journal of Consumer Research, 2000,27(1):84-95.
[13] Yan D., Sengupta J. Effects of Construal Level on the Price-Quality Relationship[J]. Journal of Consumer Research, 2011,38(2):376-389.
[14] 曾世强,陈健,吕巍,等. 独立自我"啬于人",相依自我"啬于己"——为自己消费者还是为他人消费与自我建构对储蓄和消费选择的影响[J]. 管理评论, 2016,28(6):119-130.
[15] Moreau C. P., Bonney L., Kelly B. H. It's the Thought (and the Effort) That Counts:How Customizing for Others Differs from Customizing for Oneself[J]. Journal Marketing, 2011,75(5):120-133.
[16] Baskin E., Wakslak C. J., Trope Y., et al. Why Feasibility Matters More to Gift Receivers than to Givers:A Construal-level Approach to Gift Giving[J]. Journal of Consumer Research, 2014,41(1):170-182.
[17] Trope Y., Liberman N. Construal-level Theory of Psychological Distance[J]. Psychological Review, 2010,117(2):440-463.
[18] Trope Y., Liberman, N. Temporal construal[J]. Psychological Review, 2003,110(3):403-421.
[19] Zhao M., Xie J. H. Effects of Social and Temporal Distance on Consumers' Responses to Peer Recommendations[J]. Journal of Marketing Research, 2011,48(3):486-496.
[20] Liviatan I., Trope Y., Liberma n N. Interpersonal Similarity as a Social Distance Dimension:Implications for Perception of Others'Actions[J]. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2008,44(5):1256-1269.
[21] Chen I. L. Walter M. The Personality of Familiar and Significant People:The Lay Perceiver as a Social-Cognitive Theorist[J].Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2001,80(4):585-96.
[22] Tesser A., Campbell J. Self-Definition:The Impact of the Relative Performance and Similarity of Others[J]. Social Psychology Quarterly, 1980,43(3):341-347.
[23] Higgins T., Lorraine C. I., Antonio F., et al. Transfer of Value from Fit[J]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2003,84(6):1140-1153.
[24] Thomas M., Sucharita C., Trope Y. The Effects of Information Type and Temporal Distance on Purchase Intentions[R]. Working Paper, 2007, Samuel Curtis Johnson Graduate School of Management, Cornell University.
[25] Bar-Anan Y., Liberman N., Trope Y. The Association Between Psychological Distance and Construal Level:Evidence from an Implicit Association Test[J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology:General, 2006,135(4):609-622.
[26] Gino F., Francis J. F. Give Them What They Want:The Benefits of Explicitness in Gift Exchange[J]. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2011,47(5):915-22.
[27] Teigen K. H., Olsen M. V., Solas O. E. Giver-Receiver Asymmetries in Gift Preferences[J]. Social Psychology, 2005,44(1):125-144.
[28] Ward M. K., Broniarczyk S. M. It's Not Me, It's You:How Gift Giving Creates Giver Identity Threat as a Function of Social Closeness[J]. Journal of Consumer Research, 2011,38(1):270-287.
[29] Dick A., Chakravarti D., Biehal G. Memory-Based Inference During Consumer Choice[J]. Journal of Consumer Research, 1990,17(1):82-93.
[30] Tamir D. T., Mitchell J. P. Anchoring and Adjustment During Social Inferences[J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology:General, 2013,142(1):151-162.
[31] Mussweiler T., Strack F. Hypothesis-Consistent Testing and Semantic Priming in the Anchoring Paradigm:A Selective Accessibility Model[J]. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1999,35(2):136-164.
[32] Morry M. M. The Attraction-Similarity Hypothesis Among Cross-Sex Friends:Relationship Satisfaction Perceived Similarities, and Self-Serving Perceptions[J]. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 2007,24(1):117-138.
[33] Murry S. L., Holmes J. G., Griffin D. W. Kindred Spirits? The Benefits of Egocentrism in Close Relationships[J]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2002,82(4):563-681.
[34] Aron A., Aron E. N., Tudor M. et al. Close Relationship as Including Other in the Self[J]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,1991,60(2):241-253.
[35] Vallacher R. R., Wegner D. M. Levels of Personal Agency:Individual Variation in Action Identification[J]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1989,57(4):660-671.
[36] Liberman N., Trope Y. The Role of Feasibility and Desirability Considerations in Near and Distant Future Decisions:A Test of Temporal Construal Theory, 1998,75(1):5-18.
[37] Rosenthal R., Ralph L. R., Donald B. R. Contrasts and Effect Sizes in Behavioral Research:A Correlational Approach[M]. New York:Cambridge University Press, 2000