Citation: Piercy C.W. & Carr, C.T. (2024) Reading into reviews: Contrasting star ratings and review aggregation in reviews of organizations. Journal of Communication Technology, 6(1), 1- 23. DOI: 10.51548/joctec.6.2.2024.01 

Abstract:  People turn to online reviews for information on nearly everything, from products to jobs. This study explores the interaction between quantitative star ratings and aggregated consensus cues in online reviews of organizations. A convenience sample of adults (N = 312) living in the United States participated in an experiment manipulating quantitative star ratings (high versus low) and consensus cues (individual reviews versus algorithmically aggregated reviews) in employer reviews. A posttest measured differences in credibility, relevance, attitude, and behavioral intentions after users browsed the review of an organization. Perceptions of a review’s credibility and relevance were based on consensus cues, such that aggregated ratings increased both outcomes. In contrast, overall attitude toward the organization was associated with star ratings. Participants’ behavioral intentions toward the organization were related to their overall attitudes but not to relevance or credibility of information. This study extends our understanding on how aggregation and quantitative ratings interact in online reviews of organizations and extends the utility of both congruity theory and anchoring effects in the context of online reviews.

Keywords: Online reviews, organizational reviews, congruity theory, anchoring effects, review aggregation