The Longer the Better? The Interplay Between Review Length and Line of
  Argumentation in Online Consumer Reviews
  Review helpfulness serves as focal point in understanding customers' purchase
decision-making process on online retailer platforms. An overwhelming majority
of previous works find longer reviews to be more helpful than short reviews. In
this paper, we propose that longer reviews should not be assumed to be
uniformly more helpful; instead, we argue that the effect depends on the line
of argumentation in the review text. To test this idea, we use a large dataset
of customer reviews from Amazon in combination with a state-of-the-art approach
from natural language processing that allows us to study argumentation lines at
sentence level. Our empirical analysis suggests that the frequency of
argumentation changes moderates the effect of review length on helpfulness.
Altogether, we disprove the prevailing narrative that longer reviews are
uniformly perceived as more helpful. Our findings allow retailer platforms to
improve their customer feedback systems and to feature more useful product
reviews.
