Online Reviews of Credence Service Providers: What Do Consumers Evaluate, Do Other Consumers Believe the Reviews, and Are Interventions Needed?

IF 5.1 3区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS Journal of Public Policy & Marketing Pub Date : 2021-01-01 DOI:10.1177/0743915620950676
Shannon Lantzy, Rebecca W. Hamilton, Yu-Jen Chen, K. Stewart
{"title":"Online Reviews of Credence Service Providers: What Do Consumers Evaluate, Do Other Consumers Believe the Reviews, and Are Interventions Needed?","authors":"Shannon Lantzy, Rebecca W. Hamilton, Yu-Jen Chen, K. Stewart","doi":"10.1177/0743915620950676","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Consumer-generated online reviews of credence service providers, such as doctors, have become common on platforms such as Yelp and RateMDs. Yet doctors have challenged the legitimacy of these platforms on the grounds that consumers do not have the expertise required to evaluate the quality of the medical care they receive. This challenge is supported by the economics of information literature, which has characterized doctors as a credence service, meaning that consumers cannot evaluate quality even after consumption. Are interventions needed to ensure that consumers are not misled by these reviews? Data from real online reviews shows that many of the claims made in real reviews of credence service providers focus on experience attributes, such as promptness, which consumers can typically evaluate, rather than credence attributes, such as knowledge. Follow-up experiments show that consumers are more likely to believe experience claims (vs. credence claims) made by other consumers, claims that are supported by data, and longer reviews even if they are not more informative. The authors discuss implications for consumers and credence service providers and possible policy interventions.","PeriodicalId":51437,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Public Policy & Marketing","volume":"87 1","pages":"27 - 44"},"PeriodicalIF":5.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Public Policy & Marketing","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0743915620950676","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

Consumer-generated online reviews of credence service providers, such as doctors, have become common on platforms such as Yelp and RateMDs. Yet doctors have challenged the legitimacy of these platforms on the grounds that consumers do not have the expertise required to evaluate the quality of the medical care they receive. This challenge is supported by the economics of information literature, which has characterized doctors as a credence service, meaning that consumers cannot evaluate quality even after consumption. Are interventions needed to ensure that consumers are not misled by these reviews? Data from real online reviews shows that many of the claims made in real reviews of credence service providers focus on experience attributes, such as promptness, which consumers can typically evaluate, rather than credence attributes, such as knowledge. Follow-up experiments show that consumers are more likely to believe experience claims (vs. credence claims) made by other consumers, claims that are supported by data, and longer reviews even if they are not more informative. The authors discuss implications for consumers and credence service providers and possible policy interventions.
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
信用服务提供商的在线评论:消费者评价什么,其他消费者是否相信这些评论,是否需要干预?
在Yelp和RateMDs等平台上,消费者对医生等信用服务提供商的在线评论已经变得很普遍。然而,医生们对这些平台的合法性提出了质疑,理由是消费者不具备评估他们获得的医疗服务质量所需的专业知识。这一挑战得到了信息文献经济学的支持,该经济学将医生描述为一种信任服务,这意味着消费者即使在消费后也无法评估质量。是否需要干预措施来确保消费者不被这些评论误导?来自真实在线评论的数据显示,在对信用服务提供商的真实评论中,许多索赔都集中在体验属性上,比如消费者通常可以评估的及时性,而不是信誉属性,比如知识。后续实验表明,消费者更有可能相信其他消费者的经验主张(相对于信誉主张),这些主张有数据支持,以及更长的评论,即使它们没有更多的信息。作者讨论了对消费者和信用服务提供者的影响以及可能的政策干预。
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
10.20
自引率
15.40%
发文量
29
期刊介绍: Journal of Public Policy & Marketing welcomes manuscripts from diverse disciplines to offer a range of perspectives. We encourage submissions from individuals with varied backgrounds, such as marketing, communications, economics, consumer affairs, law, public policy, sociology, psychology, anthropology, or philosophy. The journal prioritizes well-documented, well-reasoned, balanced, and relevant manuscripts, regardless of the author's field of expertise.
期刊最新文献
EXPRESS: Cultivating Sustainable Return Migration to Lebanon: Supporting Young Migrants through Marketing Systems Amidst Ongoing Conflict EXPRESS: Resourcing Hope: Refugee Agentive Consumption Acts in Protracted Displacement EXPRESS: Response Satisficing across Online Data Sources: Effects of Satisficing on Data Quality and Policy-Relevant Results Social Impact at Scale: Reflections on the Recommendations of the TCR Impact Task Force Commentary on “Transitioning to New Paradigms for Societally Impactful Research: Recommendations from the TCR Impact Task Force and an Agenda”
×
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