Cargando…

Explaining reviewing effort: Existing reviews as potential driver

Online review systems try to motivate reviewers to invest effort in writing reviews, as their success crucially depends on the helpfulness of such reviews. Underlying cognitive mechanisms, however, might influence future reviewing effort. Accordingly, in this study, we analyze whether existing revie...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rohde, Christoph, Kupfer, Alexander, Zimmermann, Steffen
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9592883/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36313980
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12525-022-00595-3
_version_ 1784815030422732800
author Rohde, Christoph
Kupfer, Alexander
Zimmermann, Steffen
author_facet Rohde, Christoph
Kupfer, Alexander
Zimmermann, Steffen
author_sort Rohde, Christoph
collection PubMed
description Online review systems try to motivate reviewers to invest effort in writing reviews, as their success crucially depends on the helpfulness of such reviews. Underlying cognitive mechanisms, however, might influence future reviewing effort. Accordingly, in this study, we analyze whether existing reviews matter for future textual reviews. From analyzing a dataset from Google Maps covering 40 sights across Europe with over 37,000 reviews, we find that textual reviewing effort, as measured by the propensity to write an optional textual review and (textual) review length, is negatively related to the number of existing reviews. However, and against our expectations, reviewers do not increase textual reviewing effort if there is a large discrepancy between the existing rating valence and their own rating. We validate our findings using additional review data from Yelp. This work provides important implications for online platforms with review systems, as the presentation of review metrics matters for future textual reviewing effort.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9592883
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-95928832022-10-25 Explaining reviewing effort: Existing reviews as potential driver Rohde, Christoph Kupfer, Alexander Zimmermann, Steffen Electron Mark Research Paper Online review systems try to motivate reviewers to invest effort in writing reviews, as their success crucially depends on the helpfulness of such reviews. Underlying cognitive mechanisms, however, might influence future reviewing effort. Accordingly, in this study, we analyze whether existing reviews matter for future textual reviews. From analyzing a dataset from Google Maps covering 40 sights across Europe with over 37,000 reviews, we find that textual reviewing effort, as measured by the propensity to write an optional textual review and (textual) review length, is negatively related to the number of existing reviews. However, and against our expectations, reviewers do not increase textual reviewing effort if there is a large discrepancy between the existing rating valence and their own rating. We validate our findings using additional review data from Yelp. This work provides important implications for online platforms with review systems, as the presentation of review metrics matters for future textual reviewing effort. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022-10-25 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC9592883/ /pubmed/36313980 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12525-022-00595-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Research Paper
Rohde, Christoph
Kupfer, Alexander
Zimmermann, Steffen
Explaining reviewing effort: Existing reviews as potential driver
title Explaining reviewing effort: Existing reviews as potential driver
title_full Explaining reviewing effort: Existing reviews as potential driver
title_fullStr Explaining reviewing effort: Existing reviews as potential driver
title_full_unstemmed Explaining reviewing effort: Existing reviews as potential driver
title_short Explaining reviewing effort: Existing reviews as potential driver
title_sort explaining reviewing effort: existing reviews as potential driver
topic Research Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9592883/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36313980
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12525-022-00595-3
work_keys_str_mv AT rohdechristoph explainingreviewingeffortexistingreviewsaspotentialdriver
AT kupferalexander explainingreviewingeffortexistingreviewsaspotentialdriver
AT zimmermannsteffen explainingreviewingeffortexistingreviewsaspotentialdriver