Weighting ratings: Are people adjusting for bias in extreme reviews?

IF 2.7 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED Journal of Experimental Psychology-Applied Pub Date : 2024-06-01 Epub Date: 2023-10-30 DOI:10.1037/xap0000497
Neel Ocean
{"title":"Weighting ratings: Are people adjusting for bias in extreme reviews?","authors":"Neel Ocean","doi":"10.1037/xap0000497","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48003,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Applied","volume":" ","pages":"391-409"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Applied","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000497","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/10/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

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
加权评分:人们是否在调整极端评论中的偏见?
消费者评分的重要性越来越大,这引发了一个问题,即人们在评判产品时,是否会适应潜在的虚假或有偏见的极端观点。两项研究测试了修剪评级分布极值的处理方法。无论是在保留平均值的同时删除极端评级,还是标记可疑的极端评级,或是让个人对评论操纵产生兴趣,都不会显著影响判断的产品质量。然而,对特定分布的判断可能会通过标记或修剪而变得不那么极端。平均而言,很难推翻平均评级作为产品质量最强指标的使用。当拟合加权平均模型时,估计的加权轮廓是驼峰形和不对称的。消费者似乎对五星级的评级持折扣态度,但特别容易被虚伪的一星级评级误导。权重表明,产品评级存在二元偏差,拐点为2星,这意味着任何高于2星的评级都会发出同样强烈的质量积极信号。需要进一步的理论工作来了解人们是如何形成评分权重的,应用工作应该继续寻找可以帮助消费者更好地适应审查偏见的决策辅助工具。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c)2023 APA,保留所有权利)。
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
4.90
自引率
3.80%
发文量
110
期刊介绍: The mission of the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied® is to publish original empirical investigations in experimental psychology that bridge practically oriented problems and psychological theory. The journal also publishes research aimed at developing and testing of models of cognitive processing or behavior in applied situations, including laboratory and field settings. Occasionally, review articles are considered for publication if they contribute significantly to important topics within applied experimental psychology. Areas of interest include applications of perception, attention, memory, decision making, reasoning, information processing, problem solving, learning, and skill acquisition.
期刊最新文献
A rate-them-all lineup procedure increases information but reduces discriminability. Comparing generating predictions with retrieval practice as learning strategies for primary school children. A comparison between numeric confidence ratings and verbal confidence statements. Prior knowledge and new learning: An experimental study of domain-specific knowledge. Time on task effects during interactive visual search.
×
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