Visual Homophily and Source Credibility in eWOM Communication: The Role of Face Shape in Hedonic Product Evaluations
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15170/MM.2026.60.03.02Keywords:
visual homophily, eWOM, hedonic products, source trustworthiness, ELMAbstract
THE AIM OF THE PAPER
The aim of the paperThis study investigates electronic word of-mouth (eWOM) mechanisms, focusing on visual homophily (face shape similarity) within the context of hedonic products. It addresses the implicit persuasion effects of source-receiver similarity and the role of sourceattribution processes in digital environments.
METHODOLOGY
In an online experiment, 202 participants evaluated 10 stimulus packages designed for peripheral processing (positive reviews, profile pictures, and contextual images). Profile pictures featured gender-matched average faces representing five distinct face shapes. Stimuli were presented separately to isolate the homophily effect. Source trustworthiness, message acceptance, and choice intention were measured on seven-point scales. To minimize priming, participants identified their own face shape only at the end of the study. Demographic data, enduring product involvement, and situational involvement were recorded as covariates.
MOST IMPORTANT RESULTS
Hypothesis testing did not support a direct effect of visual homophily on dependent variables, even after statistically controlling for predictors. Methodological comparisons suggest that isolated source presentation—unlike procedures creating comparative situations—did not significantly activate homophily-based trust mechanisms. Furthermore, results indicate that homophily effects can be suppressed by more dominant peripheral stimuli, such as the aesthetic quality of the contextual environment.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Our findings suggest that stimulus presentation mode (separated vs. comparative) acts as a moderator in shaping online trust judgments, offering a theoretical contribution to source-attribution models. Practically, the research informs the design of digital interfaces using individual review displays, such as mobile views. As verification of this boundary condition requires further investigation, systematic comparison of presentation modes and multiple product categories are recommended for future research.
References
Aronson, E. (2008). A társas lény (E. Erős, ford.; 10. bőv., átd. kiad.). Akadémiai Kiadó.
Byrne, D., Baskett, GD., & Hodges, L. (1971). Az interperszonális vonzalom viselkedési indikátorai. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1 (2), 137–149. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1971.tb00358.x
Cheema, A., & Papatla, P. (2009). Relative importance of online versus offline information for Internet purchases: Product category and Internet experience effects. Journal of Business Research, 63(9–10), 979–985. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.01.021
Chih, W., Hsu, L., & Ortiz, J. (2020). The antecedents and consequences of the perceived positive eWOM review credibility. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 120(6), 1217–1243. https://doi.org/10.1108/imds-10-2019-0573
Cyr, D., Head, M., Lim, E., & Stibe, A. (2018). Using the elaboration likelihood model to examine online persuasion through website design. Information & Management, 55(7), 807–821. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2018.03.009
DeBruine, L. M. (2002). Facial resemblance enhances trust. Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences, 269(1498), 1307–1312. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2002.2034
Filieri, R. (2016). What makes an online consumer review trustworthy? Annals of Tourism Research, 58, 46–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2015.12.019
Filieri, R., Acikgoz, F., & Du, H. (2023). Electronic word-of-mouth from video bloggers: The role of content quality and source homophily across hedonic and utilitarian products. Journal of Business Research, 160, 113774. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.113774
Filieri, R., McLeay, F., Tsui, B., & Lin, Z. (2018). Consumer perceptions of information helpfulness and determinants of purchase intention in online consumer reviews of services. Information & Management, 55(8), 956–970. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2018.04.010
Hamilton, W. (1964). The genetical evolution of social behaviour. I. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5193(64)90038-4
Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K. P., Walsh, G., & Gremler, D. D. (2004). Electronic word-ofmouth via consumer-opinion platforms: What motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the Internet? Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(1), 38–52. https://doi.org/10.1002/dir.10073
Hershberger, E. K. (2003). eELM: A replication and enhancement of the elaboration likelihood model for computer-mediated environments [Doctoral dissertation, Georgia State University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. https://www.proquest.com/docview/305333264?%20Theses&fromopenview=true&pq-origsite=gscholar&sourcetype=Dissertations%20 (Utolsó letöltés: 2026.02.15.)
Hsee, C. K. (1996). The Evaluability Hypothesis: An Explanation for Preference Reversals between Joint and Separate Evaluations of Alternatives. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67(3), 247–257. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996.0077
Ismagilova, E., Slade, E., Rana, N. P., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2019). The effect of characteristics of source credibility on consumer behaviour: A meta-analysis. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 53, 101736. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.01.005
Kitchen, P. J., Kerr, G., Schultz, D. E., McColl, R., & Pals, H. (2014). The elaboration likelihood model: review, critique and research agenda. European Journal of Marketing, 48(11/12), 2033–2050. https://doi.org/10.1108/ejm-12-2011-0776
Li, Z., Wang, Z., Yan, L., & Sun, Y. P. (2025). Perception of facial trustworthiness: The impact of top and bottom facial cues on trust judgments and behaviors. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 49(4), 467–487. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-025-00494-z
Markos-Kujbus, Éva, & Csordás, T. (2016). „Kellenek a review-k; ez egy fogyasztói igény.” Turisztikai szakemberek véleménye a TripAdvisor felületén megjelenő fogyasztói véleményekről. Marketing & Menedzsment, 50(3–4), 102–113. https://journals.lib.pte.hu/index.php/mm/article/view/889 (Utolsó letöltés: 2026.02.16.)
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a Feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1), 415–444. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415
Nakano, T., & Yamamoto, T. (2022). You trust a face like yours. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01248-8
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In: Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 123–205). https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60214-2
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Putz, Á., Nagy, Á. A., Lázár, E., Kocsor, F., & Bereczkei, T. (2025). Do birds of a feather buy together?? The influence of buyers’ facial similarity to message source on online purchase decisions. Current Psychology, 44(16), 13951–13963. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-025-08128-9
Rekettye, G., Tóth, T., & Malota, E. (2016). Nemzetközi marketing. In: Akadémiai Kiadó eBooks. https://doi.org/10.1556/9789630597401
Smith, E. R., & Mackie, D. M. (2004). Szociálpszichológia. Osiris Kiadó. The jamovi project (2023). jamovi. (Version 2.4) [Computer Software]. Retrieved from https://www.jamovi.org.
Todorov, A., Said, C. P., Engell, A. D., & Oosterhof, N. N. (2008). Understanding evaluation of faces on social dimensions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(12), 455–460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2008.10.001
Verma, S., & Yadav, N. (2020). Past, present, and future of Electronic Word of Mouth (EWOM). Journal of Interactive Marketing, 53(1), 111–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2020.07.001
Walther, M., Jakobi, T., Watson, S. J., & Stevens, G. (2023). A systematic literature review about the consumers’ side of fake review detection – Which cues do consumers use to determine the veracity of online user reviews? Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 10, 100278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2023.100278
Wang, Y., Xu, Y. C., & Ni, X. (2022). The effect of facial resemblance on cooperative behavior in the sharing economy. Journal of Global
Information Management, 30(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.4018/jgim.315307
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. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.10016
Xu, Q. (2014). Should I trust him? The effects of reviewer profile characteristics on eWOM credibility. Computers in Human Behavior, 33, 136–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.027
Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35(2), 151–175. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.35.2.151
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 The Hungarian Journal of Marketing and Management
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
