Purpose: The study examines the potential moderating effects of repeating purchase cues and product knowledge on the relationship between the varying consistency of the review set and causal attribution. This study also investigates how causal attribution correlates with the perceived misleadingness of the review set. Design/methodology/approach: A scenario-based experiment was conducted with 170 participants to explore the relationship between the consistency of the review set and causal attribution and how repeating purchase cues and product knowledge moderates this relationship. Findings: Findings suggest that inconsistent review sets lead to more product (vs reviewer) attribution than consistent review sets. The repeating purchase cues mitigate the negative relationship between the consistency of the review set and product attribution, whereas product knowledge mitigates the positive relationship between the consistency of the review set and reviewer attribution. Furthermore, the results indicate that high product attribution and low reviewer attribution are associated with low perceived misleadingness. Originality/value: This study is novel because it examines the moderating effects of repeating purchase cues and product knowledge on the relationship between the consistency of the review set and causal attribution. It adds to the literature by shedding light on the causal attribution process underlying the formation of perceived misleadingness of online reviews. The findings of this study provide valuable insights for managers on how to enhance the positive effects of consistent review sets and mitigate the negative effects of inconsistent review sets.