Abstract

Although informational inconsistency is a pervasive challenge in online word-of-mouth, prior research has primarily examined inconsistency within a single review or across reviews posted by different reviewers. Major e-commerce platforms have increasingly introduced additional-review mechanisms that allow consumers to post an initial review after confirming receipt and submit an additional review within 180 days based on subsequent usage experience. In this study, we conceptualize and examine intra-reviewer inconsistency, defined as sentiment reversals between an initial review and a subsequent update by the same reviewer, and investigate how potential consumers interpret such evaluative trajectories. Drawing on attribution theory and temporal distance literature, we propose that consumers interpret intra-reviewer inconsistency by inferring whether attitude changes reflect product-related experience or reviewer-related factors, which subsequently shapes perceived helpfulness. We theorize temporal distance as a critical boundary condition: greater temporal distance may shift interpretations of sentiment reversals from reviewer-related motives toward product-related accumulated usage experience, thereby attenuating the negative effect of inconsistency on perceived helpfulness. Given that attributional inference depends on review valence, we further unpack this moderation through valence-matched comparisons based on shared starting or ending points (e.g., P→P vs. P→N and P→P vs. N→P). Finally, acknowledging that such inconsistency may trigger cognitive conflict, we introduce a dual-path framework to examine how the interplay between perceived helpfulness and cognitive dissonance ultimately drives purchase deferral. To test this framework, we employ a multi-method approach combining econometric analysis of large-scale JD.com archival data with controlled experiments. The archival study examines whether inconsistent review trajectories receive fewer helpfulness votes, while experiments isolate the underlying mechanisms by manipulating consistency and temporal distance across valence-specific comparisons. Preliminary results confirm that intra-reviewer inconsistency reduces perceived helpfulness by weakening product attributions, a penalty mitigated by long temporal distance. By framing intra-reviewer inconsistency as a dynamic trajectory signal, this research extends online review literature, clarifies the attributional role of temporal distance, and informs platform design regarding the timing and disclosure of supplemental reviews.

Download

Share

COinS