The DOI matches its Crossref record; 72 of the 76 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 4 are not checked yet; none of the 36 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
The impact of online reviews on hotel booking intentions and perception of trust
Open accessChecked 2026-10-06 · 4 references not checked yet
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
38 Own result · 31 Not checked yet · 19 Own interpretation · 17 Own method · 4 No basis given
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Consumers seem to be more influenced by early negative information, especially when the overall set of reviews is negative.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The order manipulation, placing two positive or two negative reviews first, successfully creates the intended framing without a separate manipulation check.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Higher levels of trust are also evident when a positively framed set of reviews focused on interpersonal service.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The order manipulation, placing two positive or two negative reviews first, successfully creates the intended framing without a separate manipulation check.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There was a significant effect F(1,519) = 12.74, p < .001for framing on booking intention within the valenced overall poor reviews, with a positively framed review resulting in a more favourable booking intention than a negative framed review (small effect size r = .19).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, this characteristic did interact with framing to produce differential effects.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For the frame x target interaction (Fig. 3), simple effects tests, F(1,479) = 6.22,p = .013showed that trust was greater when the reviews were about customer service rather than core features within the positively framed condition (small effect size r = .16)”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The inclusion or exclusion of ratings alone did not result in an effect on booking intentions or trust.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For the frame x rating interaction (Fig. 2), simple effects tests, F(1,519) = 4.35, p = .038,showed that booking intention was greater when the reviews contained ratings versus no ratings for the positively framed condition (small effect size r = .14)”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In respect of an overall positive valence for a set of reviews, booking intentions remained constant despite positive or negative frames.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Two significant interaction effects were found: frame x target, F(1, 466) = 7.97, p = .005,partial η 2 = .017(small effect); and frame x rating, F(1, 466) = 3.83, p = .051,partial η 2 = .008(small effect).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“there was no significant difference within the positively framed condition, F(1,519) = 1.13 p =.288.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 34
- Probably not a substantial claim. 30
- The quote only partly states this claim. 5
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This revealed a main effect for target but not valence (see Table 2).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we investigated whether there were any gender or age effects for the two dependent variables but none was found.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, positively framed information together with numerical rating details increases both booking intentions and consumer trust.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The order manipulation, placing two positive or two negative reviews first, successfully creates the intended framing without a separate manipulation check.
- Rests on an assumption: The presence or absence of numerical ratings is a valid manipulation that requires no additional test.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Next, a 2 (valence) x 2 (target) ANOVA on the valence manipulation check item was conducted, which revealed a main effect for valence but not target (see Table 2).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the results reported in Table 2 show a moderate to strong effect size for the manipulations (8% of variance for valence and 42% of variance for core target, respectively)”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Similarly, there was no significant difference in past booking online behaviour by age of respondent.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There was a significant main effect associated with the valence manipulation, F(1, 506) = 13.48,p < .001,partial η 2 = .026(small-moderate effect)”
- Also stated in: § 4.2.1: Booking intentions · plain
“Ratings of booking intentions were higher in the positive valence (M = 3.81, SD = 1.65) than in the negative valence (M = 3.22, SD = 1.67) condition.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 4.2.1: Booking intentions · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Two significant interaction effects were found: frame x target, F(1, 466) = 7.97, p = .005,partial η 2 = .017(small effect); and frame x rating, F(1, 466) = 3.83, p = .051,partial η 2 = .008(small effect).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For the frame x rating interaction (Fig. 4), simple effects tests revealed that framing had an effect for the set of reviews that included ratings F(1,479) = 11.56,p =.001, with higher trust evaluations for the positive frame than the negative frame (small effect size r = .22)but was not significant without ratings F(1,479) = .18,p = .670.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While there was no main effect for target (core or service), there was an interaction between this variable and frame, for trust in the hotel.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No main effect was evident for either target (p = .617)or ratings (p = .406).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This was demonstrated by an interaction effect between valence and frame that reveals a positive frame increases booking intentions even though the valence is negative.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“That is, framing and rating information interact to produce either more positive assessments in the case of a positive frame and ratings or more negative assessments in the case of a negative frame and ratings.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and frame manipulation F(1, 506) = 4.45, p =.035, partial η 2 = .009(small effect)”
- Also stated in: § 4.2.1: Booking intentions · plain
“Ratings of booking intentions were higher in the positive frame (M = 3.71, SD = 1.656) than in the negative frame (M = 3.33, SD = 1.69) condition.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
- Also stated in: § 4.2.1: Booking intentions · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and frame manipulation, F(1, 466) = 6.16, p = .013,partial η 2 = .013(small effect)”
- Also stated in: § 4.2.2: Trust in the hotel · plain
“Ratings of trust were higher in the positive frame (M = 3.89, SD = 1.28) than in the negative frame (M = 3.58, SD = 1.21) condition.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
- Also stated in: § 4.2.2: Trust in the hotel · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Framing had an effect for the set of reviews that included ratings F (1,519) = 11.76,p = 001 (small effect size r = .22)but not for the set of reviews without ratings, F (1,519) = .04,p = .839.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No main effect was evident for either target (p = .080)or ratings (p = .171).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Furthermore, Smith, Bolton and Wagner (1999) note, service failures are perceived as losses and receive a more negative weighting from a consumer.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Smith, Bolton and Wagner, 1999
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Ratings tend to be quite influential in product choice (Chen, 2008) and provide potential customers with a short-cut means to assess and evaluate a product (Tsang & Prendergast, 2009).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Chen, 2008
- Not checked yetcites Tsang & Prendergast, 2009
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“A service offering such as legal advice, hotel accommodation, or airline travel can be conceptualised as comprising a core and relational component (Iacobucci & Ostrom, 1993).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Iacobucci & Ostrom, 1993
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Similarly, it is argued that predominantly negative reviews will be given more weighting than positive reviews.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Reliance on easy to evaluate information, such as general category ratings (e.g.star ratings for hotels or customer ratings of products) may have a greater influence on product purchase decisions compared with more detailed information.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Rests on an assumption: The presence or absence of numerical ratings is a valid manipulation that requires no additional test.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To ensure assumptions of analysis of variance (ANOVA) were met checks for outliers (using standard SPSS explore outlier analysis) were undertaken and none was evident.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
In the paper
“In justice literature there has been some research that suggests that evaluations are influenced more by what comes first that what is received subsequently (van den Bos, Vermunt & Wilke, 1997).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites van den Bos, Vermunt & Wilke, 1997
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“In a study by Levin (1987), a framing effect was found whereby evaluations of the target received higher ratings with positive frames.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Levin, 1987
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A final online pilot test was undertaken with a small convenience sample and included both fixed choice scale items as well as open ended feedback boxes on all components of the study.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Consumer satisfaction in previous interactions with frontline service staff influences cognitive trust, which is consumer confidence or willingness to trust the service provider in the future (Johnson and Grayson, 2005).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Johnson and Grayson, 2005
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The sample drawn from an Australian database comprised 554 community members who had been randomly assigned to one of 16 conditions.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“The final design appeared to have reasonable ecological validity (Viswanathan, 2005), whereby the materials used reflected a realistic web site.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Viswanathan, 2005
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“This is consistent with Papathanassis and Knolle's (in press, 2010) grounded theory based study that revealed a tendency for negative reviews to have more impact than positive reviews”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Papathanassis and Knolle, in press, 2010
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Xiang and Gretzel (2010) report on data that suggest a large proportion of travellers use search engines and social media when evaluating a destination.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Xiang and Gretzel (2010)
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Chen (2008) found that recommendations of other consumers exerted more influence on product choice than did reviews from expert or firm related advisors.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Chen, 2008
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Hartman, De Angeli and Sutcliffe (2008), in a study investigating information biases on website quality judgements, found framing influenced respondent service quality evaluations.Positive frames resulted in significantly higher evaluations of service quality than the same content presented with a negative frame.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hartman, De Angeli and Sutcliffe, 2008
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“As one of the seminal writers (Lovelock, 1983) on services marketing argues, customers often have to enter the service factory (e.g.restaurant) and subsequent satisfaction will be influenced by both the interactions with customer service staff and the standard of service facilities.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lovelock, 1983
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“They argue that trust is one of the most important factors in determining whether people will purchase online.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wang and Emurian, 2005
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Discriminant validity was also demonstrated with the treatments having a significant effect on the manipulation check variables and not on the confound variables.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“It has been suggested that people tend to be 'cognitive misers' (Fiske & Taylor, 1991), that is, they take short cuts when making evaluations or decisions.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Fiske & Taylor, 1991
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In sum, information received early, especially if negatively worded, is likely to be more influential on consumer evaluations.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The order manipulation, placing two positive or two negative reviews first, successfully creates the intended framing without a separate manipulation check.
In the paper
“Chen (2008) also argues that potential consumers use online consumer reviews as one way to reduce risk and uncertainty in the purchase situation.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Chen, 2008
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Three pre-tests of this kind were applied with the final one including a 'think aloud' task about the study.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A series of pre-tests were conducted to develop the stimuli, set the strength of the independent variables and to assess the external validity of the study.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“However, research suggests that negative information tends to be over emphasised and is more influential in forming impressions (see Fiske, 1993).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Fiske, 1993
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Other researchers (van Schaik & Ling, 2009), report that in contexts where the consumer is in a goal oriented mode (e.g.such as making a booking), an easy information processing approach is preferred.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites van Schaik & Ling, 2009
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, the sample seemed well matched to the task, although somewhat biased toward females.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“and Lee, Park and Han's (2008) finding that as the proportion of negative reviews increased so too did consumer negative attitudes.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lee, Park and Han, 2008
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Broadly, these service targets can be either core system type features (e.g.hotel room poorly designed / maintained /cleaned) or more staff level customer service events (Hoffman & Bateson, 2006;Keaveney, 1995).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hoffman & Bateson, 2006
- Not checked yetcites Keaveney, 1995 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While the study employed a simulation of a web site that was professionally designed, this required a limitation to what information could be presented and made active.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“These results lend support to the 'cognitive miser' (Fiske & Taylor, 1991) hypothesis, suggesting that easy-to-access information, in this case frame and rating is often, but not always, used.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Fiske & Taylor, 1991
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Similarly, the believability of the simulated task was satisfactory and consistent across conditions.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“High scores on the scale indicate greater believability in the simulation exercise (Cronbach's alpha for this scale was .79).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In summary, this paper demonstrated that the impressions formed and likely booking intentions are influenced by multiple factors, some of which interact to show simple main effects are not sufficient to understand the tourism consumer.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While core features play an important role in consumer service experience, it is the quality of the interactions with staff that is critical in influencing trust perceptions of the hotel.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is consistent with our proposition that people tend to weight negative information more strongly, with a magnified effect for a negative frame and negative content overall.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Taken together the manipulation and believability results suggest the manipulation of the independent variables of target and valence were perceived as intended and were not confounded.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the case of our research, the effect sizes for the significant results were quite small thus suggesting the need to investigate other explanatory variables.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We acknowledge that the experimental design is artificial and, as such, further investigation in the field, using other methods, may have the potential to shed further light on the research raised in this paper.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While an experimental approach is a strong research design it does limit the investigation to selected variables.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper relies on this without support.
The order manipulation, placing two positive or two negative reviews first, successfully creates the intended framing without a separate manipulation check.
“As framing was operationalised using an order approach (by either placing the first two reviews as negative or positive), no specific manipulation check was sought in the main study.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The presence or absence of numerical ratings is a valid manipulation that requires no additional test.
“Similarly, consumer numeric ratings were either present or absent on the reviews, therefore no additional tests were needed.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Individuals in the SE (i.e. users), themselves, gravitate towards information relating to the trustworthiness of the individuals they wish to engage with before deciding to interact [29–31].”
From Digital Identity: The effect of trust and reputation information on user judgement in the Sharing Economy (2018) · cites this paper as [31]
In the citing paper
“However, it is clear that profiles containing platform- and community-generated information have a significant advantage [31,37,40].”
From Digital Identity: The effect of trust and reputation information on user judgement in the Sharing Economy (2018) · cites this paper as [31]
Statistics that don’t add up
Each reported p-value recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom.
Rated major: it would touch a result — a value a result rests on, reported and recomputed p-values on opposite sides of the significance level, two passages that conflict with no sign which is right, or a cited work retracted before this paper was published.
In the paper
“F(15, 471) = 783, p = .70”
Reported p = .7 · recomputed p < .001
Statistics recomputed
Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.
- Doesn’t add upF(15, 471) = 783reported p = .7 · recomputed p < .001The two fall on opposite sides of .05
“F(15, 471) = 783, p = .70”
- Consistentt(486) = 25.85reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“t(486) = 25.85,p < .001”
- ConsistentF(1, 506) = 13.48reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(1, 506) = 13.48,p < .001”
- ConsistentF(1, 506) = 4.45reported p = .035 · recomputed p = .035
“F(1, 506) = 4.45, p = .035”
- ConsistentF(1, 506) = 4.72reported p = .03 · recomputed p = .030
“F(1, 506) = 4.72, p = .030”
- ConsistentF(1, 506) = 5.11reported p = .024 · recomputed p = .024
“F(1, 506) = 5.11, p = .024”
- ConsistentF(1, 519) = 21.13reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F (1,519) = 21.13,p < .001”
- ConsistentF(1, 519) = 12.74reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(1,519) = 12.74, p < .001”
- ConsistentF(1, 519) = 4.35reported p = .038 · recomputed p = .037
“F(1,519) = 4.35, p = .038”
- ConsistentF(1, 519) = 0.04reported p = .839 · recomputed p = .842
“F (1,519) = .04,p = .839”
- ConsistentF(1, 466) = 6.17reported p = .013 · recomputed p = .013
“F(1, 466) = 6.17, p = .013”
- ConsistentF(1, 466) = 6.16reported p = .013 · recomputed p = .013
“F(1, 466) = 6.16, p = .013”
- ConsistentF(1, 466) = 7.97reported p = .005 · recomputed p = .005
“F(1, 466) = 7.97, p = .005”
- ConsistentF(1, 466) = 3.83reported p = .051 · recomputed p = .051
“F(1, 466) = 3.83, p = .051”
- ConsistentF(1, 479) = 6.22reported p = .013 · recomputed p = .013
“F(1,479) = 6.22,p = .013”
- ConsistentF(1, 479) = 0.89reported p = .346 · recomputed p = .346
“F(1,479) = .89,p = .346”
- ConsistentF(1, 479) = 14.12reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(1,479) = 14.12, p < .001”
- ConsistentF(1, 479) = 0.04reported p = .835 · recomputed p = .842
“F(1,479) = .04,p = .835”
- ConsistentF(1, 479) = 11.56reported p = .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(1,479) = 11.56,p = .001”
- ConsistentF(1, 479) = 0.18reported p = .67 · recomputed p = .672
“F(1,479) = .18,p = .670”
- ConsistentF(1, 479) = 1.71reported p = .192 · recomputed p = .192
“F(1,479) = 1.71, p = .192”
- ConsistentF(1, 479) = 2.86reported p = .091 · recomputed p = .091
“F(1,479) = 2.86, p = .091”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Ratings
“Appendix A shows an example of the stimulus material for two out of the 12 conditions.”
§ 3.1 Simulation material and manipulation of independent variables
“There was a total of 16 simulated web sites each containing 12 reviews.”
Citations
Cites
Discovering Statistics Using SPSS
Field, A. P., & Miles, J. N. V. (2000) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 28,269
Cohen, J. (1992) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037//0033-2909.112.1.155 · Cited by 8,771
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.39.4.341 · Cited by 6,544
Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K. P., Walsh, G., & Gremler, D. D. (2004) · Journal of Interactive Marketing · doi:10.1002/dir.10073 · Cited by 5,916
Kahneman, D. J., & Tversky, A. (2013) · World Scientific handbook in financial economic series · doi:10.1142/9789814417358_0016 · Cited by 5,379
The Service Encounter: Diagnosing Favorable and Unfavorable Incidents
Bitner, M. J., Booms, B. H., & Tetreault, M. S. (1990) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.2307/1252174 · Cited by 4,860
Consumer trust, value, and loyalty in relational exchanges
Sirdeshmukh, D., Singh, J., & Sabol, B. (2002) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1509/jmkg.66.1.15.18449 · Cited by 4,196
Role of social media in online travel information search
Xiang, Z., & Ulrike Gretzel, B. (2009) · Tourism Management · doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2009.02.016 · Cited by 3,722
Electronic word-of-mouth in hospitality and tourism management
Litvin, S. W., Goldsmith, R. E., & Pan, B. (2008) · Tourism Management · doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2007.05.011 · Cited by 3,267
Customer Switching Behavior in Service Industries: An Exploratory Study
Keaveney, S. M. (1995) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.2307/1252074 · Cited by 2,905
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Hart, 2006, Internet inferno, Marketing Management, 15, 18
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 301–400 of 1,000
The main paths of eTourism: trends of managing tourism through Internet
Chuang, T. C., Liu, J. S., Lu, L. Y. Y., Tseng, F.-M., Lee, Y., & Chang, C.-T. (2016) · Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research · doi:10.1080/10941665.2016.1220963 · Cited by 63
An Experimental Investigation on the Determinants of Online Hotel Booking Intention
Park, K., Ha, J., & Park, J. (2017) · Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management · doi:10.1080/19368623.2017.1284631 · Cited by 63
Li, L., Gu, Y., Ge, X., Yang, Y., Cai, H., Jianping, H., & Jian, Z. (2017) · Sustainable Cities and Society · doi:10.1016/j.scs.2017.11.036 · Cited by 60
Yang, Y., & Leung, X. Y. (2018) · Tourism Management · doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2018.03.016 · Cited by 60
Understanding relationship quality in hospitality services
Sánchez‐Franco, M. J., Cepeda‐Carrión, G., & Roldán, J. L. (2019) · Internet Research · doi:10.1108/intr-12-2017-0531 · Cited by 62
Silva, S. C. L. D. C. E., Duarte, P., Machado, J. C., & Martins, C. (2019) · International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing · doi:10.1007/s12208-019-00237-z · Cited by 60
Moderating effects of product heterogeneity between online word-of-mouth and hotel sales
Qi, L., Ye, Q., & Law, R. (2014) · PolyU Institutional Research Archive (Hong Kong Polytechnic University) · Cited by 59
The face of contagion: consumer response to service failure depiction in online reviews
Fox, A. K., Deitz, G. D., Stafford, M. R., & Fox, J. D. (2018) · European Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1108/ejm-12-2016-0887 · Cited by 59
The impact of text valence, star rating and rated usefulness in online reviews
Pelsmacker, P. D., Dens, N., & Kolomiiets, A. (2018) · International Journal of Advertising · doi:10.1080/02650487.2018.1424792 · Cited by 67
Mariani, M. M., Fatta, G. D., & Felice, M. D. (2018) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2018.2887300 · Cited by 59
Quantifying the effects of online review content structures on hotel review helpfulness
Fan, W., Yong, L., Li, H., Tuunainen, V. K., & Lin, Y. (2021) · Internet Research · doi:10.1108/intr-11-2019-0452 · Cited by 69
Chen, Z., Shen, H. J., & Zhang, Y. (2022) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.905002 · Cited by 58
Impacts of user-generated images in online reviews on customer engagement: A panel data analysis
Li, H., Liu, H., Shin, H. H., & Ji, H. (2023) · Tourism Management · doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2023.104855 · Cited by 69
Li, S., Chark, R., BASTIAANSEN, M. C. M., & Wood, E. H. (2023) · Annals of Tourism Research · doi:10.1016/j.annals.2023.103615 · Cited by 64
Kim, E., & Tang, R. (2016) · Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management · doi:10.1080/19368623.2016.1149537 · Cited by 63
Roozen, I. T. M., & Raedts, M. (2018) · Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management · doi:10.1080/19368623.2018.1488229 · Cited by 57
Analysing online reviews to investigate customer behaviour in the sharing economy
Lee, C. K. H., Tse, Y. K., Zhang, M., & Ma, J. (2019) · Information Technology and People · doi:10.1108/itp-10-2018-0475 · Cited by 57
Han, X., Qu, J., & Zhang, T. (2019) · Telematics and Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.tele.2019.101276 · Cited by 56
Influencing factors of the persuasiveness of online reviews considering persuasion methods
Hong, W., Yu, Z., Wu, L., & Pu, X. (2019) · Electronic Commerce Research and Applications · doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2019.100912 · Cited by 57
Zloteanu, M., Harvey, N., Tuckett, D., & Livan, G. (2018) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0209071 · Cited by 56
Using online travel agent platforms to determine factors influencing hotel guest satisfaction
Wong, E., Rasoolimanesh, S. M., & Sharif, S. P. (2020) · Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology · doi:10.1108/jhtt-07-2019-0099 · Cited by 64
Balance and Sequence in Online Reviews: The Wrap Effect
Purnawirawan, N., Dens, N., & Pelsmacker, P. D. (2012) · International Journal of Electronic Commerce · doi:10.2753/jec1086-4415170203 · Cited by 59
Torres, E. N., Adler, H., & Behnke, C. (2014) · Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management · doi:10.1016/j.jhtm.2014.04.001 · Cited by 56
Lai, X., Wang, F., & Wang, X. (2021) · International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management · doi:10.1108/ijchm-07-2020-0708 · Cited by 56
Power in praise: Exploring online compliments on luxury hotels in Malaysia
Khoo-Lattimore, C. S. C., & Ekiz, E. H. (2014) · Tourism and Hospitality Research · doi:10.1177/1467358414539970 · Cited by 55
Asymmetry of Hotel Ratings on TripAdvisor: Evidence from Single- Versus Dual-Valence Reviews
Fong, L. H. N., Lei, S. I., & Law, R. (2016) · Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management · doi:10.1080/19368623.2016.1178619 · Cited by 59
A cross-country comparison of accommodation manager perspectives on online review manipulation
Gössling, S., Zeiss, H., Hall, C., Martín-Ríos, C., Ram, Y., & Grøtte, I. (2019) · Current Issues in Tourism · doi:10.1080/13683500.2018.1455171 · Cited by 57
The dimensions of hotel customer ratings that boost RevPAR
Nieto‐García, M., Resce, G., Ishizaka, A., Occhiocupo, N., & Viglia, G. (2018) · International Journal of Hospitality Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.09.002 · Cited by 60
Exploring the impact of online information signals in leveraging the economic returns of physicians
Shah, A. M., Yan, X., Shah, S. A. A., Shah, S. J., & Mamirkulova, G. (2019) · Journal of Biomedical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103272 · Cited by 55
Moravec, P. L., Kim, A., Dennis, A. R., & Minas, R. K. (2022) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.2021.1090 · Cited by 57
Tao, S., & Kim, H. (2019) · Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research · doi:10.1080/10941665.2019.1591473 · Cited by 58
Jin, S. A., & Phua, J. (2015) · Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing · doi:10.1080/10548408.2015.1038419 · Cited by 56
Will tourists take mobile travel advice? Examining the personalization-privacy paradox
Lei, S. I., Chan, I. C. C., Tang, J., & Ye, S. (2022) · Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management · doi:10.1016/j.jhtm.2022.02.007 · Cited by 58
Suspicion of online product reviews as fake: Cues and consequences
Harrison‐Walker, L. J., & Jiang, Y. (2023) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.113780 · Cited by 62
Crafting clarity: Leveraging large language models to decode consumer reviews
Praveen, S. V., Gajjar, P., Ray, R. K., & Dutt, A. (2024) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2024.103975 · Cited by 61
‘Troll alert!’: Provocation and harassment in tourism and hospitality social media
Mkono, M. (2015) · Current Issues in Tourism · doi:10.1080/13683500.2015.1106447 · Cited by 53
Knowledge mapping in travel website studies: a scientometric review
Qian, J., Law, R., & Wei, J. (2018) · Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism · doi:10.1080/15022250.2018.1526113 · Cited by 53
Consumer engagement: the role of social currency in online reviews
Kesgin, M., & Murthy, R. S. (2018) · Service Industries Journal · doi:10.1080/02642069.2018.1553237 · Cited by 59
Osman, H., D’Acunto, D., & Johns, N. (2019) · Psychology and Marketing · doi:10.1002/mar.21264 · Cited by 53
Understanding public relations in the ‘sharing economy’
Gregory, A., & Halff, G. (2016) · Public Relations Review · doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2016.10.008 · Cited by 52
Travel websites: Changing visits, evaluations and posts
Bronner, F. E., & de Hoog, R. (2016) · Annals of Tourism Research · doi:10.1016/j.annals.2015.12.012 · Cited by 52
Qi, M., Li, X., Zhu, E., & Shi, Y. (2016) · Building and Environment · doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.09.027 · Cited by 52
Determinants of Electronic word of mouth (EWOM) influence on hotel customers' purchasing decision
Abd-Elaziz, M. E., Aziz, W. M., Khalifa, G. S. A., & Abdel-Aleem, M. (2015) · International Journal of Heritage, Tourism, and Hospitality · Cited by 52
The effect of management response similarity on online hotel booking
Zhang, Z., Li, H., Meng, F., & Li, Y. (2019) · International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management · doi:10.1108/ijchm-09-2018-0740 · Cited by 52
The power of beauty? The interactive effects of awe and online reviews on purchase intentions
Septianto, F., Kemper, J. A., & Choi, J. O. (2020) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102066 · Cited by 55
ICT adoption in hotels and electronic word-of-mouth
Velázquez, B. M., Blasco, M. F., & Saura, I. G. (2015) · Academia Revista Latinoamericana de Administración · doi:10.1108/arla-10-2013-0164 · Cited by 51
The stress of anonymous online reviews: a conceptual model and research agenda
Bradley, G. L., Sparks, B., & Weber, K. (2015) · International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management · doi:10.1108/ijchm-01-2014-0005 · Cited by 59
Self-citationSharing economy and the lodging websites
Nisar, T. M., Hajli, N., Prabhakar, G. P., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2019) · Information Technology and People · doi:10.1108/itp-06-2018-0297 · Cited by 51
Similarity and Consistency in Hotel Online Ratings across Platforms
Alcañiz, J. E. B., William, E., & Soria‐Olivas, E. (2019) · Journal of Travel Research · doi:10.1177/0047287519859705 · Cited by 55
Guest Online Review: An Extraordinary Focus on Hotel Users’ Satisfaction, Engagement, and Loyalty
Vo, N. T., Hung, V. V., Tučková, Z., Pham, N. T., & Nguyen, L. H. L. (2021) · Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism · doi:10.1080/1528008x.2021.1920550 · Cited by 50
Sann, R., Lai, P., Liaw, S., & Chen, C.-T. (2022) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su14031800 · Cited by 55
Product recommendation with latent review topics
Zhang, J., & Piramuthu, S. (2016) · Information Systems Frontiers · doi:10.1007/s10796-016-9697-z · Cited by 50
Enhancing the impact of online hotel reviews through the use of emoticons
Manganari, E. E., & Dimara, E. (2017) · Behaviour and Information Technology · doi:10.1080/0144929x.2016.1275807 · Cited by 50
Šerić, M., & Praničević, D. G. (2017) · Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management · doi:10.1080/19368623.2017.1340219 · Cited by 54
The more the merrier? Number of reviews versus score on TripAdvisor and Booking.com
Martín-Fuentes, E., Mateu, C., & Fernández, C. C. (2018) · International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration · doi:10.1080/15256480.2018.1429337 · Cited by 50
Peer‐to‐peer accommodation: A meta‐analysis of factors affecting customer satisfaction and loyalty
Shin, H. W., Fan, A., & Lehto, X. Y. (2020) · International Journal of Tourism Research · doi:10.1002/jtr.2428 · Cited by 50
COVID-19 in Singapore and New Zealand: Newspaper portrayal, crisis management
Thirumaran, K., Mohammadi, Z., Pourabedin, Z., Azzali, S., & Sim, K. S. (2021) · Tourism Management Perspectives · doi:10.1016/j.tmp.2021.100812 · Cited by 52
Wang, C., Cui, W., Zhang, Y., & Shen, H. J. (2022) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.912177 · Cited by 59
Liao, J., He, S., Feng, W., & Filieri, R. (2023) · Journal of Travel Research · doi:10.1177/00472875231175083 · Cited by 54
Is negative eWOM more influential than negative pWOM?
Bachleda, C. L., & Berrada-Fathi, B. (2015) · Journal of Service Theory and Practice · doi:10.1108/jstp-11-2014-0254 · Cited by 58
The dark side of feeling trusted for hospitality employees: An investigation in two service contexts
Wang, H., & Huang, Q. (2018) · International Journal of Hospitality Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.04.001 · Cited by 52
E-tailer website attributes and trust: understanding the role of online reviews
Sebastianelli, R., & Tamimi, N. (2018) · Online Information Review · doi:10.1108/oir-02-2016-0039 · Cited by 51
Trust in online hotel reviews across review polarity and hotel category
Banerjee, S., & Chua, A. Y. K. (2018) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2018.09.010 · Cited by 54
Nilashi, M., Bidgoli, B. M., Alrizq, M., Alghamdi, A., Alsulami, A. A., Samad, S., & Mohd, S. B. (2021) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2021.115722 · Cited by 49
Kunja, S. R., Rao, B., & Acharyulu, G. (2021) · IIMB Management Review · doi:10.1016/j.iimb.2021.11.002 · Cited by 49
Sharma, M., Antony, R., Sehrawat, R., Cruz, A. C., & Daim, T. U. (2021) · Technology in Society · doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101781 · Cited by 52
Analytic perspectives on online purchasing in hotels: a review of literature and research directions
Morosan, C. V., & Bowen, J. T. (2017) · International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management · doi:10.1108/ijchm-10-2016-0566 · Cited by 48
Ruiz‐Equihua, D., Romero, J., & Casaló, L. V. (2019) · Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management · doi:10.1080/19368623.2019.1630698 · Cited by 53
Young Consumers’ Intention to Participate in the Sharing Economy: An Integrated Model
Martínez-González, J. A., Parra-López, E., & Barrientos–Báez, A. (2021) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su13010430 · Cited by 52
Trust Model for Online Reviews of Tourism Services and Evaluation of Destinations
Zelenka, J., Azubuike, T., & Pašková, M. (2021) · Administrative Sciences · doi:10.3390/admsci11020034 · Cited by 51
Azer, J., & Ranaweera, C. (2022) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.03.068 · Cited by 51
Daily online review sentiment and hotel performance
Nicolau, J. L., Xiang, Z., & Wang, D. (2023) · International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management · doi:10.1108/ijchm-05-2022-0594 · Cited by 47
The mechanism of online review management: A qualitative study
Nguyen, K., & Coudounaris, D. N. (2015) · Tourism Management Perspectives · doi:10.1016/j.tmp.2015.08.002 · Cited by 47
Mass effects and mobility decisions
Abou-Zeid, M., Schmöcker, J., Belgiawan, P. F., & Fujii, S. (2013) · Transportation Letters · doi:10.1179/1942786713z.00000000011 · Cited by 47
A service failure framework of hotels in Taiwan
Loo, P. T., & Leung, R. (2016) · Journal Of Vacation Marketing · doi:10.1177/1356766716682555 · Cited by 47
Social media use for travel purposes: a cross cultural comparison between Portugal and the UK
Amaro, S., & Duarte, P. (2017) · Information Technology & Tourism · doi:10.1007/s40558-017-0074-7
Predicting hotel book intention: The influential role of helpfulness and advocacy of online reviews
Ghosh, T. (2017) · Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management · doi:10.1080/19368623.2017.1364198 · Cited by 50
Information Processing on Online Review Platforms
Siering, M., & Janze, C. (2019) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.1080/07421222.2019.1661094 · Cited by 50
Fanelli, R. M., & Romagnoli, L. (2020) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su12051749 · Cited by 52
A Literature Review on The Influence of Promotion, Price and Brand Image to Purchase Decision
Hermiyenti, S., & Wardi, Y. (2019) · Padang International Conference on Education, Economics, Business and Accounting (PICEEBA) · doi:10.2991/piceeba2-18.2019.34 · Cited by 46
Effect of eWom on purchase intention: meta-analysis
Albayrak, M., & Ceylan, C. (2021) · Data Technologies and Applications · doi:10.1108/dta-03-2020-0068 · Cited by 68
Joshi, A., Sekar, S., & Das, S. (2023) · Personnel Review · doi:10.1108/pr-07-2022-0478 · Cited by 46
Wei, W., Önder, İ., & Uysal, M. (2024) · Current Issues in Tourism · doi:10.1080/13683500.2023.2296587 · Cited by 58
Ahn, Y., & Lee, J. (2024) · Journal of theoretical and applied electronic commerce research · doi:10.3390/jtaer19020055 · Cited by 46
Stars, Votes, and Badges: How Online Badges Affect Hotel Reviewers
Schuckert, M. R., Liu, X., & Law, R. (2015) · Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing · doi:10.1080/10548408.2015.1064056 · Cited by 46
Background factors to innovation performance: results of an empirical study using fsQCA methodology
Palacios‐Marqués, D., Dobón, S. R., & Comeig, I. (2016) · Quality & Quantity · doi:10.1007/s11135-016-0414-2 · Cited by 46
Understanding and predicting what influence online product sales? A neural network approach
Hou, F., Li, B., Chong, A. Y., Yannopoulou, N., & Liu, M. J. (2017) · Production Planning & Control · doi:10.1080/09537287.2017.1336791 · Cited by 47
E-complaint tracking and online problem-solving strategies in hospitality management
Şahin, İ., Gülmez, M., & Kitapçı, O. (2017) · Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology · doi:10.1108/jhtt-02-2017-0009 · Cited by 46
The effects of online reviews on service expectations: Do cultural value orientations matter?
Nath, P., Devlin, J. F., & Reid, V. (2018) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.05.001 · Cited by 57
Huang, G., & Liang, H. (2020) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.12.052 · Cited by 52
Simulated satiation through reality‐enhancing technology
Pala, E., Kapitan, S., & van Esch, P. (2021) · Psychology and Marketing · doi:10.1002/mar.21582 · Cited by 46
An Aspect-Based Review Analysis Using ChatGPT for the Exploration of Hotel Service Failures
Jeong, N., & Lee, J. (2024) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su16041640 · Cited by 45
D’Acunto, D., Filieri, R., & Okumuş, F. (2025) · International Journal of Hospitality Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2025.104194 · Cited by 45
Smironva, E., Kiatkawsin, K., Lee, S. K., Kim, J., & Lee, C.-H. (2019) · Current Issues in Tourism · doi:10.1080/13683500.2019.1599828 · Cited by 47
The Effect of Priming and Customer Reviews on Sustainable Travel Behaviors
Kim, E. J., Tanford, S., & Book, L. A. (2020) · Journal of Travel Research · doi:10.1177/0047287519894069 · Cited by 50
Liu, J., Zhang, H., Sun, J., Li, N., & Bilgihan, A. (2020) · International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management · doi:10.1108/ijchm-04-2020-0334 · Cited by 45
Matzat, U., & Snijders, C. C. P. (2012) · Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01594.x · Cited by 45
Negative online reviews, brand equity and emotional contagion
Ahmad, F., & Guzmán, F. (2021) · European Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1108/ejm-10-2019-0820 · Cited by 33
Colmekcioglu, N., Marvi, R., Foroudi, P., & Okumuş, F. (2022) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.08.033 · Cited by 49
Trust in Virtual Interaction: The Role of Avatars in Sustainable Customer Relationships
Guo, Y., Ng, W., Hao, F., Zhang, C., Liu, S.-X., & Aman, A. M. (2023) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su151814026 · Cited by 44
Metadata
- Authors
- Sparks, B. A., & Browning, V.
- Affiliations
- Griffith University (AU)
- Queensland University of Technology (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Sparks, Beverley A.
- Venue
- Tourism Management
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2011-12
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1310-1323
- ISSN
- 0261-5177 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1991622328
- Cited by
- 1,688
- References
- 76
- Citations by year
- 2026: 159 · 2025: 136 · 2024: 105 · 2023: 142 · 2022: 140 · 2021: 150 · 2020: 158 · 2019: 157 · 2018: 119 · 2017: 112 · 2016: 107 · 2015: 85 · 2014: 52 · 2013: 47 · 2012: 15
- FWCI
- 117.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Tourism Management (publishedVersion)
- QUT ePrints (Queensland University of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Griffith University
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Digital Marketing and Social Media
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Tourism, Leisure and Hospitality Management › Diverse Aspects of Tourism Research
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Consumer Behavior and Marketing Influence
- Keywords
- online reviews, hotel booking intention, consumer trust, electronic word of mouth, review valence, numerical ratings, interpersonal service, consumer choice, information processing
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-06, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-06 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
