Understanding and overcoming biases in online review systems

被引:62
作者
Askalidis, Georgios [1 ]
Kim, Su Jung [2 ]
Malthouse, Edward C. [3 ]
机构
[1] Spotify Inc, New York, NY 10011 USA
[2] Iowa State Univ, Greenlee Sch Journalism & Commun, Ames, IA 50011 USA
[3] Northwestern Univ, Integrated Mkg Commun & Ind Engn & Management Sci, Evanston, IL 60208 USA
关键词
Online customer reviews; Electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM); Social influence bias; Selection bias; Intrinsic motivation; Extrinsic motivation; WORD-OF-MOUTH; INTRINSIC MOTIVATION; REPUTATION; CONSUMERS; DYNAMICS;
D O I
10.1016/j.dss.2017.03.002
中图分类号
TP18 [人工智能理论];
学科分类号
081104 ; 0812 ; 0835 ; 1405 ;
摘要
This study addresses the issues of social influence and selection biases in the context of online review systems. We propose that one way to reduce these biases is to send email invitations to write a review to a random sample of buyers, and not exposing them to existing reviews while they write their reviews. We provide empirical evidence showing how such a simple intervention from the retailer mitigates the biases by analyzing data from four diverse online retailers over multiple years. The data include both self-motivated reviews, where the reviewer sees other reviews at the time of writing, and retailer-prompted reviews generated by an email invitation to verified buyers, where the reviewer does not see existing reviews. Consistent with previous research on the social influence bias, we find that the star ratings of self-motivated reviews decrease over time (i.e., downward trend), while the star ratings of retailer-prompted reviews remain constant. As predicted by theories on motivation, the self-motivated reviews are shown to be more negative (lower valence), longer, and more helpful, which suggests that the nature of self-motivated and retailer-prompted reviews is distinctively different and the influx of retailer-prompted reviews would enhance diversity in the overall review system. Regarding the selection bias, we found that email invitations can improve the representativeness of reviews by adding a new segment of verified buyers. In sum, implementing appropriate design and policy in online review systems will improve the quality and validity of online reviews and help practitioners provide more credible and representative ratings to their customers. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:23 / 30
页数:8
相关论文
共 40 条
[21]   Reputation in auctions: Theory, and evidence from eBay [J].
Houser, D ;
Wooders, J .
JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT STRATEGY, 2006, 15 (02) :353-369
[22]   Overcoming the J-shaped Distribution of Product Reviews [J].
Hu, Nan ;
Pavlou, Paul A. ;
Zhang, Jie .
COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM, 2009, 52 (10) :144-147
[23]   A study of factors that contribute to online review helpfulness [J].
Huang, Albert H. ;
Chen, Kuanchin ;
Yen, David C. ;
Tran, Trang P. .
COMPUTERS IN HUMAN BEHAVIOR, 2015, 48 :17-27
[24]  
Krishnan S., 2014, P 8 ACM C REC SYST F
[25]   Self-Selection and Information Role of Online Product Reviews [J].
Li, Xinxin ;
Hitt, Lorin M. .
INFORMATION SYSTEMS RESEARCH, 2008, 19 (04) :456-474
[26]  
Luca M, 2011, REV REPUTATION REVEN
[27]   Fake It Till You Make It: Reputation, Competition, and Yelp Review Fraud [J].
Luca, Michael ;
Zervas, Georgios .
MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, 2016, 62 (12) :3412-3427
[28]   Too good to be true: the role of online reviews' features in probability to buy [J].
Maslowska, Ewa ;
Malthouse, Edward C. ;
Bernritter, Stefan F. .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING, 2017, 36 (01) :142-163
[29]   Promotional Reviews: An Empirical Investigation of Online Review Manipulation [J].
Mayzlin, Dina ;
Dover, Yaniv ;
Chevalier, Judith .
AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW, 2014, 104 (08) :2421-2455
[30]   Social Influence Bias: A Randomized Experiment [J].
Muchnik, Lev ;
Aral, Sinan ;
Taylor, Sean J. .
SCIENCE, 2013, 341 (6146) :647-651