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 801–900 of 1,000
Jing, W., Ma, Y., Tang, B., & Wu, Y. (2025) · International Journal of Hospitality Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2025.104419 · Cited by 12
Reputation Cues as Signals in the Sharing Economy
Rosenthal, S., Tan, J. Y. C., & Poh, T. F. (2020) · Social Sciences · doi:10.3390/socsci9040049 · Cited by 13
The dissemination and impacts of deceptive eWOM: a dynamic process perspective
Shih, C.-F., Huang, S., & Huang, H. (2022) · Behaviour and Information Technology · doi:10.1080/0144929x.2022.2063759 · Cited by 11
Le, H. T. P. M., Park, J., Nguyen, T. T. U., & Yun, J. (2023) · Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing · doi:10.1108/jrim-04-2023-0125 · Cited by 10
The double-edged sword of user reviews: how customer feedback can build and break hotel brands
Oshriyeh, O., & Egger, R. (2025) · Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management · doi:10.1080/19368623.2025.2494567 · Cited by 10
Winning the Battle: The Importance of Price and Online Reviews for Hotel Selection
Ciftci, O., Berezina, K., Çavuşoğlu, M., & Çobanoğlu, C. (2020) · Advances in Hospitality and Tourism Research (AHTR) · doi:10.30519/ahtr.528150 · Cited by 10
Modelling users' trust in online health rumours: an experiment-based study in China
Deng, S., Fu, S., Yong, L., & Li, H. (2021) · Information Research · doi:10.47989/irpaper890 · Cited by 9
eWOM, confianza y engagement: incidencia en el capital de marca
Puma, M. F. V., & Contrí, G. B. (2020) · Revista Venezolana de Gerencia · doi:10.37960/rvg.v25i3.33368 · Cited by 16
Do Online Reviews Encourage Customers to Write Online Reviews? A Longitudinal Study
Xia, Y., & Ha, H. (2022) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su14084612 · Cited by 10
Khan, S. (2015) · Asia-Pacific Journal of Innovation in Hospitality and Tourism (APJIHT) · doi:10.7603/s40930-015-0004-8 · Cited by 10
Do lower costs necessarily induce higher value ratings? An analysis of online hotel reviews
Hu, X., & Yang, Y. (2020) · Current Issues in Tourism · doi:10.1080/13683500.2020.1810211 · Cited by 10
Roozen, I. T. M., & Raedts, M. (2021) · Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism · doi:10.1080/1528008x.2021.1897919 · Cited by 10
A Robust Reputation-Based Group Ranking System and Its Resistance to Bribery
Saúde, J., Ramos, G., Boratto, L., & Caleiro, C. (2022) · UNICA IRIS Institutional Research Information System (University of Cagliari) · doi:10.1145/3462210 · Cited by 10
Kim, T., Hwang, S., & Kim, M. (2022) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.05.077 · Cited by 10
Generating Trust in Online Consumer Reviews through Signaling: An Experimental Study
Riasanow, T., Ye, H. J., & Goswami, S. (2015) · Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) · doi:10.1109/hicss.2015.399 · Cited by 10
An investigation on the Acceptance of Facebook by Travellers for Travel Planning
Enter, N., & Michopoulou, E. (2013) · University of Derby Online Research Archive. (University of Derby) · Cited by 10
Hotel Marketing Policy: Role of Rating in Consumer Decision Making
Bačík, R., Fedorko, R., Gavurová, B., Oleárová, M., & Rigelský, M. (2020) · Marketing and Management of Innovations · doi:10.21272/mmi.2020.2-01 · Cited by 10
Analysis of Online Hotel Ratings: The Case of Bansko, BulgariaPreprint
Ilieva, D., & Ivanov, S. H. (2014) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2496523 · Cited by 10
Public health emergencies and travelers' review efforts
Zhang, Z., Wang, B., Law, R., & Yu, H. (2024) · Annals of Tourism Research · doi:10.1016/j.annals.2024.103769 · Cited by 9
Voutsa, M. C., Tsapatsoulis, N., & Djouvas, C. (2025) · AI · doi:10.3390/ai6080178 · Cited by 10
CHRISTIN, G. A. D., & Nugraha, A. K. N. A. (2023) · International Journal of Electronic Commerce Studies · doi:10.7903/ijecs.2115 · Cited by 9
Seaman, A. N., Franzidis, A. F., & Nelson, M. (2024) · Geographical Review · doi:10.1080/00167428.2023.2299785 · Cited by 9
Zhang, J., Du, Z., Sun, S., & Wang, S. (2024) · Current Issues in Tourism · doi:10.1080/13683500.2024.2389308 · Cited by 9
Quality in Product Reviews: What Technical Communicators Should Know
Mackiewicz, J. (2015) · Iowa State University Digital Repository (Iowa State University) · Cited by 9
Martínez-de-Pisón, E., Fernández-Ceniceros, J., Pernía-Espinoza, A. V., Martínez-de-Pisón, F. J., & Sanz-García, A. (2016) · International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making · doi:10.1142/s0219622016500309 · Cited by 9
Jiménez, F. S. (2017) · Círculo de lingüística aplicada a la comunicación · doi:10.5209/clac.57903 · Cited by 9
Is tourism conducive to residents’ social trust? Evidence form large-scale social surveys
Strzelecka, M., & Okulicz‐Kozaryn, A. (2018) · Tourism Review · doi:10.1108/tr-05-2017-0091 · Cited by 9
Building the long bridge between visitors and customers through online general reviews
Tsao, W.-Y. (2018) · Online Information Review · doi:10.1108/oir-01-2016-0028 · Cited by 9
Seeking reward or avoiding risk from restaurant reviews: does distance matter?
Kim, E. L., & Tanford, S. (2019) · International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management · doi:10.1108/ijchm-03-2018-0235 · Cited by 11
Khan, A., Abosuliman, S. S., Abdullah, S., & Ayaz, M. (2021) · Entropy · doi:10.3390/e23040432 · Cited by 9
The Impact of Online Consumer Reviews on Online Hotel Booking Intention
Güler, Y. C., & Huseynov, F. (2021) · Journal of Business Research - Turk · doi:10.20491/isarder.2021.1282 · Cited by 17
Tourists’ Booking Behavior: Online Social Media Perspectives
Ghaedi, M. (2022) · Journal of Promotion Management · doi:10.1080/10496491.2021.2015509 · Cited by 9
Barrera, R. B. (2022) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-022-04288-8 · Cited by 9
Lee, B. S., & Cho, E. (2022) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2022.2041910 · Cited by 9
A Comparison of Fuzzy Approaches to E-Commerce Review Rating Prediction
Acampora, G., & Cosma, G. (2015) · Advances in intelligent systems research/Advances in Intelligent Systems Research · doi:10.2991/ifsa-eusflat-15.2015.173 · Cited by 9
Market Intelligence: Social Media Analytics and Hotel Online Reviews
Xiang, Z., Schwartz, Z., & Uysal, M. (2016) · Tourism on the verge · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-44263-1_16 · Cited by 9
Liang, X., Лю, П., & Liu, Z. (2018) · Symmetry · doi:10.3390/sym10050178 · Cited by 9
Pena‐Marin, J., & Yan, D. (2020) · Journal of Consumer Psychology · doi:10.1002/jcpy.1178 · Cited by 9
Shin, S., & Xiang, Z. (2023) · Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management · doi:10.1080/19368623.2023.2279166 · Cited by 8
Ouyang, J., Jia, Y., & Guo, Q. (2023) · Cornell Hospitality Quarterly · doi:10.1177/19389655231214710 · Cited by 8
Analysis of Digital Tourist's Purchasing Decision Process Based on Feedback and Opinions
Kupi, M., & Bakó, F. (2023) · Decision Making Applications in Management and Engineering · doi:10.31181/dmame712024951 · Cited by 8
A pricing strategy of dual-channel supply chain considering online reviews and in-sale service
Liu, Y., Lin, C.-X., & Zhao, G. (2024) · Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing · doi:10.1108/jbim-06-2022-0248 · Cited by 8
Puspitasari, D., Weng, C., Chu, R. J., & Chu, A. Z.-C. (2024) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2024.2354434 · Cited by 10
Deng, P., Zhou, X., Xie, D., & Zheng, P. (2024) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su16135600 · Cited by 9
The Role of Sentiment Analysis in Brand Management and Marketing: A Comparative Study
Selimovic, M., Almisreb, A. A., & Amanzholova, S. (2024) · Procedia Computer Science · doi:10.1016/j.procs.2024.11.152 · Cited by 8
Ruiz, S. R., & Parra, V. F. G. (2022) · International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science · doi:10.1016/j.ijgfs.2022.100658 · Cited by 8
The verbalization of numbers: An explainable framework for tourism online reviews
Nicolò, F. D., Bellantuono, L., Borzì, D., Bregonzio, M., Cilli, R., Marco, L. D., Lombardi, A., Pantaleo, E., Petruzzellis, L., Shashaj, A., et al. (2023) · International Journal of Engineering Business Management · doi:10.1177/18479790231151913 · Cited by 8
Sujood, S., Ali, R., Arwab, M., & Hamid, S. (2023) · Tourism and hospitality management · doi:10.20867/thm.29.2.12 · Cited by 8
Shatnawi, H. S., Alawneh, K., Alananzeh, O. A., Khasawneh, M. H. A., & Masa’deh, R. M. T. (2023) · GeoJournal of Tourism and Geosites · doi:10.30892/gtg.50420-1138 · Cited by 15
Liu, X., Wang, J., & Liu, C. (2024) · British Food Journal · doi:10.1108/bfj-07-2024-0693 · Cited by 9
Socio-economic factors determining the ROPO trend in the travel industry
Dudek, A., Jaremen, D. E., & Michalska-Dudek, I. (2019) · Tourism Economics · doi:10.1177/1354816619848200 · Cited by 9
Beyond the Lexical Sense of Online Reviews: The Role of Emoticons and Consumer Experience
Manganari, E. E., Mourelatos, E., & Dimara, E. (2020) · Interacting with Computers · doi:10.1093/iwc/iwab004 · Cited by 8
Spita, M., Peitzika, E., & Chatzi, S. (2020) · International Journal of Decision Sciences Risk and Management · doi:10.1504/ijdsrm.2020.110144 · Cited by 8
Kushcheva, N., & Eilola, T.-M. (2023) · Emerald Group Publishing Limited eBooks · doi:10.1108/978-1-80382-375-120231009 · Cited by 8
Belanche, D., Casaló, L. V., & Guinalíu, M. (2012) · Investigaciones Europeas de Dirección y Economía de la Empresa · doi:10.1016/j.iedee.2012.10.002 · Cited by 15
The Relationship between Online Reviews, Brand Trust, and Willingness to Buy
Cheng, V., Rhodes, J., & Lok, P. (2015) · Advances in e-business research series · doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-8133-0.ch007 · Cited by 8
Feature Extraction from Numerical Evaluation in Online Hotel Reviews
Tsujii, K., Takahashi, M., & Tsuda, K. (2015) · Procedia Computer Science · doi:10.1016/j.procs.2015.08.164 · Cited by 8
Assessment, Implication, and Analysis of Online Consumer Reviews: A Literature Review
Anand, O., Srivastava, P. R., & Rakshit, A. (2017) · Pacific Asia journal of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1pais.09203 · Cited by 8
Visiting Scuttled Ships: An Examination of the Important Elements of the Wreck Diving Experience
Seaman, A. N., & Depper, G. L. (2019) · Tourism in Marine Environments · doi:10.3727/154427319x15567670161919 · Cited by 8
FUTURE TRENDS IN THE HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY: AN ANALYSIS FROM THE CONSUMERS’ POINT OF VIEW
Breda, Z. M. D. J., Pacheco, C., & Dinis, G. (2019) · Tourism in South East Europe .../Tourism in Southern and Eastern Europe · doi:10.20867/tosee.05.9 · Cited by 8
Aureli, S., Medei, R., Supino, E., & Travaglini, C. (2013) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-03973-2_28 · Cited by 8
Hotels and Resorts Rent Intention via Online Affiliate Marketing
Suchada, J., Watanapa, B., Charoenkitkarn, N., & Chirapornchai, T. (2018) · KnE Social Sciences · doi:10.18502/kss.v3i1.1402 · Cited by 8
The dichotomy of customer relationship management and variety-seeking behaviour in the hotel sector
Udunuwara, M., Sanders, D., & Wilkins, H. (2018) · Journal Of Vacation Marketing · doi:10.1177/1356766718817793 · Cited by 8
Pereira‐Moliner, J., Villar-García, M., Molina-Azorín, J. F., Tarı́, J. J., López‐Gamero, M. D., & Pertusa‐Ortega, E. M. (2024) · Tourism Management Perspectives · doi:10.1016/j.tmp.2024.101243 · Cited by 7
Exploring the Online Hotel Reviews on Travelers’ Green Psychological Cognition
Chuang, C.-M., Yeh, Y.-C., Hsiao, T.-Y., & Wu, J.-Y. (2024) · Journal of Tourism and Services · doi:10.29036/jots.v15i28.607 · Cited by 10
Effects of product online reviews on product returns: a review and classification of the literature
Wang, Y., Yu, B., & Chen, J. (2024) · International Transactions in Operational Research · doi:10.1111/itor.13502 · Cited by 10
García, A. M., Saura, I. G., Molina, M. E. R., & Moise, M. S. (2025) · Service Business · doi:10.1007/s11628-025-00581-7 · Cited by 7
From booking to rating activities: A holistic analysis of online review behavior in a destination
Nicolau, J. L., Alcañiz, J. E. B., Bulchand‐Gidumal, J., & William, E. (2025) · Journal of Destination Marketing & Management · doi:10.1016/j.jdmm.2025.100995 · Cited by 7
Chu, H., & Shi, X. (2025) · Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering · doi:10.1080/13467581.2025.2482142 · Cited by 7
Investigating Intentions to Visit Sarajevo City: Expanding the Theory of Planned Behavior
Bouarar, A. C., Mouloudj, K., Čaušević, A., & Mouloudj, S. (2025) · Tourism and hospitality management · doi:10.20867/thm.31.3.4 · Cited by 7
Reforming the SERVQUAL model for accommodation sharing services: A mixed-method approach
Liu, W., Yuan, Y., Jiang, Y., & Mou, J. (2025) · Data and Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.dim.2025.100102 · Cited by 12
Hu, Z.-W., Yu, S., & Luo, J.-M. (2025) · Journal of Vacation Marketing · doi:10.1177/13567667251352547 · Cited by 7
Anggraini, L. P., & Sobari, N. (2023) · Jurnal Manajemen Teori dan Terapan | Journal of Theory and Applied Management · doi:10.20473/jmtt.v16i1.42345 · Cited by 7
Complexities of trust building through sociomaterial arrangements of peer-to-peer platforms
Pumputis, A. (2023) · Current Issues in Tourism · doi:10.1080/13683500.2023.2214848 · Cited by 9
How do online travel reviews facilitate informed purchase decisions?
Chuang, C.-M., Wu, C. X., & Snell, R. S. (2023) · Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research · doi:10.1080/10941665.2023.2228939 · Cited by 7
The longer the better? The impact of online review length on tourist trust and visit intention
Huang, M. C.-J., Chuang, S., Cheng, Y., & Hsieh, C.-C. (2023) · Journal Of Vacation Marketing · doi:10.1177/13567667231193436 · Cited by 8
Tandon, A., Aggarwal, A. G., & Aggarwal, S. (2023) · Annals of Operations Research · doi:10.1007/s10479-023-05640-8 · Cited by 7
Cheng, C., Tsai, M.-C., & Chang, Y.-S. (2023) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0290629 · Cited by 7
The Impact of Online Reviews on Hotel Performance
Gabbard, D. (2023) · Journal of Modern Hospitality · doi:10.47941/jmh.1558 · Cited by 7
Wang, W.-C., & Lin, C. (2024) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su16062271 · Cited by 7
NLP-Driven Insights on Boutique Hotel Satisfaction
Mishra, A. N., Li, J., Sengupta, P., & Oztekin, A. (2024) · Journal of Computer Information Systems · doi:10.1080/08874417.2024.2362824 · Cited by 7
Understanding Booking.com’s rating drop in the context of online hotel reviews
Martín-Fuentes, E., Mellinas, J. P., & Mateu, C. (2024) · Tourism and Hospitality Research · doi:10.1177/14673584241283901 · Cited by 7
Neuro-Fuzzy Sentiment Analysis for Customer Review Rating Prediction
Cosma, G., & Acampora, G. (2016) · Studies in computational intelligence · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-30319-2_15 · Cited by 7
Exploring User-Generated Images in Online Reviews of Hotels
Djafarova, E., & Deluce, B. (2018) · Tourism Analysis · doi:10.3727/108354218x15305418666959 · Cited by 7
Business Analytics in Tourism: Uncovering Knowledge from Crowds
Marcolin, C. B., Becker, J. L., Wild, F., Schiavi, G. S., & Behr, A. (2019) · BAR - Brazilian Administration Review · doi:10.1590/1807-7692bar2019180136 · Cited by 7
Remoaldo, P. C. A., Vareiro, L., Ribeiro, J. C., de Abreu, J., & Bettencourt, A. M. S. (2019) · Tourism and Hospitality Research · doi:10.1177/1467358419888971 · Cited by 7
Hotels competition based on online ranking position
Alarcón, J., Palacín, B., & Maspera, J. (2020) · European Journal of Tourism Research · doi:10.54055/ejtr.v26i.1940 · Cited by 7
When travellers’ expectations are not met
Hernández-López, M. D. L. O. (2020) · Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict · doi:10.1075/jlac.00041.her · Cited by 7
THE ROLE OF COMPANY REPUTATION IN MITIGATING NEGATIVE WORD OF MOUTH
Rahmani, S., Halim, R. E., Gayatri, G., & Furinto, A. (2021) · Verslas teorija ir praktika · doi:10.3846/btp.2021.12983 · Cited by 7
Kalinić, Č., & Vujičić, M. D. (2021) · Advances in hospitality, tourism and the services industry (AHTSI) book series · doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-8528-3.ch021 · Cited by 7
Digital natives: internal defence mechanism to distrust tourism advertisements
Choi, M., Choi, Y., & Kim, D.-Y. (2022) · Current Issues in Tourism · doi:10.1080/13683500.2022.2095508 · Cited by 7
Consumer digital trust: The main trends and research directions
Ребязина, В., & Олегович, Т. Э. (2022) · Russian Management Journal · doi:10.21638/spbu18.2021.403 · Cited by 7
Two decades of research in Electronic Word of Mouth: a bibliometric analysis
Orejuela, A. R., Andrade, C. F. O., & Muñoz, J. P. (2021) · Revista científica Pensamiento y Gestión · doi:10.14482/pege.48.658.84 · Cited by 11
The effects of news authenticity and social media tie strength on consumer dissemination behavior
Lin, H., Chen, C., & Wu, C. (2023) · Managerial and Decision Economics · doi:10.1002/mde.3818 · Cited by 7
Andrade, C. F. O., Pastrana, C. A. A., & Orejuela, A. R. (2023) · Estudios Gerenciales · doi:10.18046/j.estger.2023.166.5415 · Cited by 8
Zhang, X., Yu, J., & Kim, H. (2024) · SAGE Open · doi:10.1177/21582440241255827 · Cited by 7
DECISION-MAKING BASED ON WEB 2.0 DATA: THE SMALL AND MEDIUM HOTELS MANAGEMENT
Chaves, M. S., Gomes, R. D. C., & Pedron, C. D. (2012) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 8
The Impact of the Destination's Online Initiatives on Word of Mouth
Morosan, C. V. (2013) · Tourism Analysis · doi:10.3727/108354213x13736372325993 · Cited by 7
The Decade of Online Shopping in the Jewish Ultra-Orthodox Community
Lissitsa, S., & Cohen, O. (2018) · Journal of Media and Religion · doi:10.1080/15348423.2018.1531623 · Cited by 7
Bartosiak, M. (2020) · Current Issues in Tourism · doi:10.1080/13683500.2020.1765749 · Cited by 7
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
