加权评级:人们是否对极端评价中的偏见进行了调整?

IF 2.7 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED Journal of Experimental Psychology-Applied Pub Date : 2023-10-30 DOI:10.2139/ssrn.4245795
Neel Ocean
{"title":"加权评级:人们是否对极端评价中的偏见进行了调整?","authors":"Neel Ocean","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.4245795","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"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) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":48003,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Applied","volume":"26 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Weighting ratings: Are people adjusting for bias in extreme reviews?\",\"authors\":\"Neel Ocean\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.4245795\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"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) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).\",\"PeriodicalId\":48003,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Applied\",\"volume\":\"26 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-30\",\"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/10.2139/ssrn.4245795\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Applied","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4245795","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

消费者评价的重要性日益增加,这引发了一个问题,即人们在判断产品时是否会根据潜在的虚假或偏颇的极端观点进行调整。两项研究测试了减少评分分布极值的治疗方法。在保留平均值的同时去除极端评级,不标记可疑的极端评级,也不启动个人对评论操纵的影响显著影响被评判的平均产品质量。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,很难推翻使用平均评级作为产品质量的最强代理。当拟合加权均值模型时,估计的加权曲线呈驼峰状,且不对称。消费者似乎不相信五星评级,但特别容易被虚假的一星评级误导。权重表明,产品评级在2星处存在一个拐点,这意味着任何高于2星的评级都广泛地发出了同样强烈的质量积极信号。进一步的理论工作需要理解人们如何形成评级权重,应用工作应该继续寻找决策辅助工具,帮助消费者更好地调整评论偏见。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c) 2023 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Weighting ratings: Are people adjusting for bias in extreme reviews?
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).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 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