Weighting ratings: Are people adjusting for bias in extreme reviews?
Journal
Journal of experimental psychology. Applied
ISSN: 1939-2192
Titre abrégé: J Exp Psychol Appl
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9507618
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
30 Oct 2023
30 Oct 2023
Historique:
medline:
30
10
2023
pubmed:
30
10
2023
entrez:
30
10
2023
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
The increasing importance of consumer ratings raises the question of whether people adjust for potentially fake or biased extreme opinions when judging products. Two studies tested treatments that trimmed the extremes of rating distributions. Neither removing extreme ratings while preserving the mean, nor flagging suspicious extreme ratings, nor priming individuals about review manipulation significantly affect judged product quality on average. However, judgments for specific distributions may be made less extreme by flagging or trimming. On average, it is difficult to override usage of the mean rating as the strongest proxy for product quality. When a weighted-mean model is fitted, the estimated weighting profile is hump-shaped and asymmetric. Consumers appear to discount 5-star ratings but are particularly susceptible to being misled by disingenuous 1-star ratings. The weights suggest that there is a binary bias with an inflection point at 2-stars for product ratings, meaning that any rating above this broadly sends an equally strong positive signal of quality. Further theoretical work is required to understand how people form weights for ratings, and applied work should continue to search for decision aids that could help consumers to better adjust for review bias. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
Identifiants
pubmed: 37902695
pii: 2024-20886-001
doi: 10.1037/xap0000497
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Subventions
Organisme : CAGE Research Centre
Organisme : University of Warwick