Uncertainty Reduction vs. Reciprocity: Understanding the Effect of a Platform-Initiated Reviewer Incentive Program on Regular Ratings

IF 5 3区 管理学 Q1 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE Information Systems Research Pub Date : 2023-11-07 DOI:10.1287/isre.2019.0176
Jingchuan Pu, Young Kwark, Sang Pil Han, Qiang Ye, Bin Gu
{"title":"Uncertainty Reduction vs. Reciprocity: Understanding the Effect of a Platform-Initiated Reviewer Incentive Program on Regular Ratings","authors":"Jingchuan Pu, Young Kwark, Sang Pil Han, Qiang Ye, Bin Gu","doi":"10.1287/isre.2019.0176","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Many online platforms are now offering free samples to seasoned reviewers, hoping to get feedback. While these reviewers are given free samples to review, they also buy and review products themselves. The regular ratings for the purchased products are the majority. This brings up the question: Does receiving free products make them rate their personal purchases more positively? And if so, why? We explored two possibilities. First, uncertainty reduction mechanism: The idea that trying free samples makes buyers more confident in their purchases, leading to greater satisfaction and higher ratings for the purchased products; Second, reciprocity mechanism: The idea that reviewers might feel obliged to give better ratings as a “thank you” for the free samples or with the expectations of getting more free samples, which could introduce bias. Our research indicates that giving free samples mainly helps in reducing purchase uncertainty, making customers genuinely happier with their subsequent purchases. So, online platforms can benefit from this strategy, as it seems to uplift genuine positive reviews rather than create biased ones. However, it is still essential to monitor for any undue bias to maintain trustworthiness in reviews.","PeriodicalId":48411,"journal":{"name":"Information Systems Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Information Systems Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2019.0176","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Many online platforms are now offering free samples to seasoned reviewers, hoping to get feedback. While these reviewers are given free samples to review, they also buy and review products themselves. The regular ratings for the purchased products are the majority. This brings up the question: Does receiving free products make them rate their personal purchases more positively? And if so, why? We explored two possibilities. First, uncertainty reduction mechanism: The idea that trying free samples makes buyers more confident in their purchases, leading to greater satisfaction and higher ratings for the purchased products; Second, reciprocity mechanism: The idea that reviewers might feel obliged to give better ratings as a “thank you” for the free samples or with the expectations of getting more free samples, which could introduce bias. Our research indicates that giving free samples mainly helps in reducing purchase uncertainty, making customers genuinely happier with their subsequent purchases. So, online platforms can benefit from this strategy, as it seems to uplift genuine positive reviews rather than create biased ones. However, it is still essential to monitor for any undue bias to maintain trustworthiness in reviews.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
减少不确定性vs.互惠:了解平台发起的评论者激励计划对常规评级的影响
许多在线平台现在向经验丰富的评测者提供免费试用,希望得到反馈。虽然这些评论者会得到免费的样品来评论,但他们也会自己购买和评论产品。购买产品的常规评级占多数。这就带来了一个问题:收到免费的产品是否会让他们对自己的个人购买做出更积极的评价?如果是,为什么?我们探索了两种可能性。第一,不确定性降低机制:试用免费样品使购买者对购买更有信心,从而对购买的产品产生更大的满意度和更高的评分;第二,互惠机制:评论者可能会因为免费样品或期望获得更多免费样品而感到有义务给予更高的评分,这可能会引入偏见。我们的研究表明,提供免费样品主要有助于减少购买的不确定性,使顾客在随后的购买中真正感到快乐。因此,在线平台可以从这一策略中受益,因为它似乎可以提升真正的正面评论,而不是制造有偏见的评论。然而,仍然有必要监测任何不适当的偏见,以保持审查的可信度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.10
自引率
8.20%
发文量
120
期刊介绍: ISR (Information Systems Research) is a journal of INFORMS, the Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences. Information Systems Research is a leading international journal of theory, research, and intellectual development, focused on information systems in organizations, institutions, the economy, and society.
期刊最新文献
Win by Hook or Crook? Self-Injecting Favorable Online Reviews to Fight Adjacent Rivals Omnificence or Differentiation? An Empirical Study of Knowledge Structure and Career Development of IT Workers Timely Quality Problem Resolution in Peer-Production Systems: The Impact of Bots, Policy Citations, and Contributor Experience Does David Make A Goliath? Impact of Rival’s Expertise Signals on Online User Engagement How to Make My Bug Bounty Cost-Effective? A Game-Theoretical Model
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1