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
Customer Satisfaction and Word of Mouth
Anderson, E. W. (1998) · Journal of Service Research · doi:10.1177/109467059800100102 · Cited by 2,227
A Model of Customer Satisfaction with Service Encounters Involving Failure and Recovery
Smith, A. K., Bolton, R. N., & Wagner, J. (1999) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.2307/3152082 · Cited by 2,058
Classifying Services to Gain Strategic Marketing Insights
Lovelock, C. H. (1983) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1177/002224298304700303 · Cited by 1,996
Word of mouth communication within online communities: conceptualizing the online social network
Brown, J., Broderick, A. J., & Lee, N. (2007) · Journal of Interactive Marketing · doi:10.1002/dir.20082 · Cited by 1,661
Exploring the value of online product reviews in forecasting sales: The case of motion pictures
Dellarocas, C. N., Zhang, X., & Awad, N. F. (2007) · Journal of Interactive Marketing · doi:10.1002/dir.20087 · Cited by 1,553
Cognitive and affective trust in service relationships
Johnson, D. S., & Grayson, K. A. (2003) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/s0148-2963(03)00140-1 · Cited by 1,493
Why are you telling me this? An examination into negative consumer reviews on the Web
Sen, S., & Lerman, D. B. (2007) · Journal of Interactive Marketing · doi:10.1002/dir.20090 · Cited by 1,324
Tried and tested: The impact of online hotel reviews on consumer consideration
Vermeulen, I. E., & Seegers, D. (2009) · Tourism Management · doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2008.04.008 · Cited by 1,311
The impact of online user reviews on hotel room sales
Ye, Q., Law, R., & Gu, B. (2008) · International Journal of Hospitality Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2008.06.011 · Cited by 1,291
The effect of negative online consumer reviews on product attitude: An information processing view
Lee, J., Park, D.-H., & Han, I. (2007) · Electronic Commerce Research and Applications · doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2007.05.004 · Cited by 1,212
Ye, Q., Law, R., Gu, B., & Chen, W. (2010) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.04.014 · Cited by 1,179
Levin, I. P., & Gaeth, G. J. (1988) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/209174 · Cited by 1,172
Use and Impact of Online Travel Reviews
Gretzel, U., & Yoo, K. H. (2008) · Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2008 · doi:10.1007/978-3-211-77280-5_4 · Cited by 1,141
Grégoire, Y., Tripp, T. M., & Legoux, R. (2009) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1509/jmkg.73.6.18 · Cited by 1,031
An overview of online trust: Concepts, elements, and implications
Wang, Y. D., & Emurian, H. H. (2004) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2003.11.008 · Cited by 998
Customer betrayal and retaliation: when your best customers become your worst enemies
Grégoire, Y., & Fisher, R. J. (2007) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1007/s11747-007-0054-0 · Cited by 869
Schneider, B., & Bowen, D. E. (2010) · Service science: research and innovations in the service economy · doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-1628-0_4 · Cited by 866
Park, D.-H., & Kim, S. (2008) · Electronic Commerce Research and Applications · doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2007.12.001 · Cited by 848
Classifying Services to Gain Strategic Marketing Insights
Lovelock, C. H. (1983) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.2307/1251193 · Cited by 834
Checking the Success of Manipulations in Marketing Experiments
Perdue, B. C., & Summers, J. O. (1986) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.2307/3151807 · Cited by 743
Social Cognition and Social Perception
Fiske, S. T. (1993) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.44.020193.001103 · Cited by 626
The mechanics of trust: A framework for research and design
Riegelsberger, J., Sasse, M. A., & McCarthy, J. D. (2005) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2005.01.001 · Cited by 508
Pan, B., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2006) · Annals of Tourism Research · doi:10.1016/j.annals.2006.03.006 · Cited by 457
van den Bos, K., Vermunt, R. C., & Wilke, H. (1997) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.72.1.95 · Cited by 454
Intentions to use social media in organizing and taking vacation trips
Parra-López, E., Bulchand‐Gidumal, J., Taño, D. G., & Armas, R. J. D. (2010) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.022 · Cited by 440
Exploring the adoption and processing of online holiday reviews: A grounded theory approach
Papathanassis, A., & Knolle, F. (2010) · Tourism Management · doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2009.12.005 · Cited by 395
Designing experiments that generalize
Highhouse, S. (2009) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/1094428107300396 · Cited by 353 · cited 2×
“Experimental designs are useful for generalising about theoretical effects of variables rather than generalising statistical effects to wider populations (Highhouse, 2009).”
BackgroundAn analysis of antecedents and consequences of trust in a corporate brand
Sichtmann, C. (2007) · European Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1108/03090560710773318 · Cited by 334
Exploring gender differences in online shopping attitude
Hasan, B. (2010) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.12.012 · Cited by 331
Visual complexity of websites: Effects on users’ experience, physiology, performance, and memory
Tuch, A. N., Bargas-Avila, J. A., Opwis, K., & Wilhelm, F. H. (2009) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2009.04.002 · Cited by 329
Trust factors influencing virtual community members: A study of transaction communities
Wu, J., Chen, Y., & Chung, Y.-S. (2009) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.03.022 · Cited by 328
Iacobucci, D., & Ostrom, A. (1993) · Journal of Consumer Psychology · doi:10.1016/s1057-7408(08)80017-4 · Cited by 324 · cited 1×
“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).”
BackgroundInformation and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2008
ÇETİNKAYA, A. Ş. (2009) · Tourism Management · doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2009.01.010 · Cited by 322
E‐complaining: a content analysis of an Internet complaint forum
Harrison‐Walker, L. J. (2001) · Journal of Services Marketing · doi:10.1108/eum0000000005657 · Cited by 318
Understanding the intention to follow the advice obtained in an online travel community
Casaló, L. V., Flavián, C., & Guinalíu, M. (2011) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.04.013 · Cited by 318
Herd behavior in purchasing books online
Chen, Y. (2008) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2007.08.004 · Cited by 305
Measurement Error and Research Design
Viswanathan, M. (2005) · Sage eBooks · doi:10.4135/9781412984935 · Cited by 288
Social cognition: Categorical person perception
Macrae, C. N., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2001) · British Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1348/000712601162059 · Cited by 286
A conceptual model of trust in the online environment
Salo, J., & Karjaluoto, H. (2007) · Online Information Review · doi:10.1108/14684520710832324 · Cited by 273
Complaining in Cyberspace: The Motives and Forms of Hotel Guests' Complaints Online
Sparks, B., & Browning, V. (2010) · Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management · doi:10.1080/19368623.2010.508010 · Cited by 264
Self-citationConsumer perceptions on web advertisements and motivation factors to purchase in the online shopping
Kim, J. U., Kim, W. J., & Park, S. C. (2010) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.032 · Cited by 250
Grayson, K., Johnson, D., & Chen, D.-F. R. (2008) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1509/jmkr.45.2.241 · Cited by 234
An Analysis of Word-of-Mouse Ratings and Guest Comments of Online Hotel Distribution Sites
Stringam, B. B., & Gerdes, J. H. (2010) · Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management · doi:10.1080/19368623.2010.508009 · Cited by 226
Essentials of Services Marketing
Bateson, J., & Hoffman, K. D. (1997) · Cited by 209
Essentials of Services Marketing
(1998) · International Journal of Service Industry Management · doi:10.1108/ijsim.1998.9.3.313.4 · Cited by 202
The role of context in perceptions of the aesthetics of web pages over time
van Schaik, P., & Ling, J. (2008) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2008.09.012 · Cited by 197
Associative effects of information framing
Levin, I. P. (1987) · Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society · doi:10.3758/bf03330291 · Cited by 184
Analyzing Hotel Customers' E-Complaints from an Internet Complaint Forum
Lee, C. C., & Hu, C. (2004) · Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing · doi:10.1300/j073v17n02_13 · Cited by 162
Word of Mouth Communication As Negative Information
Richins, M. L. (1984) · ACR North American Advances · Cited by 158
The Effect of Online Information Search on Image Development
Li, X. R., Pan, B., Zhang, L., & Smith, W. W. (2009) · Journal of Travel Research · doi:10.1177/0047287508328659 · Cited by 151
Is a “star” worth a thousand words?
Tsang, A. S. L., & Prendergast, G. (2009) · European Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1108/03090560910989876 · Cited by 136
Reflections on Statistical and Substantive Significance, with a Slice of Replication
Robinson, D. H., & Levin, J. R. (1997) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.2307/1176544 · Cited by 125
Comegys, C., Hannula, M., & Váisánen, J. (2009) · Cited by 113
Homepage aesthetics: The search for preference factors and the challenges of subjectivity
Pandır, M., & Knight, J. (2006) · Interacting with Computers · doi:10.1016/j.intcom.2006.03.007 · Cited by 101
Roth, S. P., Schmutz, P., Pauwels, S. L., Bargas-Avila, J. A., & Opwis, K. (2009) · Interacting with Computers · doi:10.1016/j.intcom.2009.10.004 · Cited by 99
Online Reviews: Do Consumers Use Them?Preprint
Chatterjee, P. (2001) · SSRN Electronic Journal · Cited by 92
Guest perceptions of hotel quality: Determining which employee groups count most
Hartline, M. D. (2003) · Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly · doi:10.1016/s0010-8804(03)90045-0 · Cited by 91
Hartmann, J., Angeli, A. D., & Sutcliffe, A. (2008) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/1357054.1357190 · Cited by 83
Representations and adaptation to climate change
Buzinde, C. N., Manuel‐Navarrete, D., Kerstetter, D. L., & Redclift, M. (2010) · Annals of Tourism Research · doi:10.1016/j.annals.2009.10.018 · Cited by 80
Robinson, D. H., & Levin, J. R. (1997) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x026005021 · Cited by 80
A comparison of service delivery processes of different complexity
Danaher, P. J., & Mattsson, J. (1998) · International Journal of Service Industry Management · doi:10.1108/09564239810199941 · Cited by 70
de Laat, P. B. (2005) · Ethics and Information Technology · doi:10.1007/s10676-006-0002-6 · Cited by 51
The influence of evidence type and product involvement on message‐framing effects in advertising
Dardis, F. E., & Shen, F. (2008) · Journal of Consumer Behaviour · doi:10.1002/cb.247 · Cited by 39
How “placed trust” works in a service encounter
Halliday, S. V. (2004) · Journal of Services Marketing · doi:10.1108/08876040410520708 · Cited by 39
Special Issue on Web 2.0 in travel and tourism: Empowering and changing the role of travelers
Σιγάλα, Μ. (2010) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.04.005 · Cited by 37
Stoddard, J. E., & Fern, E. F. (1999) · Psychology and Marketing · doi:10.1002/(sici)1520-6793(199910)16:7 · Cited by 25
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Hart, 2006, Internet inferno, Marketing Management, 15, 18
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Airbnb: disruptive innovation and the rise of an informal tourism accommodation sector
Guttentag, D. A. (2013) · Current Issues in Tourism · doi:10.1080/13683500.2013.827159 · Cited by 1,881
Social Media in Tourism and Hospitality: A Literature Review
Leung, D., Law, R., van Hoof, H., & Buhalis, D. (2013) · Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing · doi:10.1080/10548408.2013.750919 · Cited by 1,557
Trust and reputation in the sharing economy: The role of personal photos in Airbnb
Ert, E., Fleischer, A., & Magen, N. (2016) · Tourism Management · doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2016.01.013 · Cited by 1,295
Guo, Y., Barnes, S. J., & Jia, Q. (2016) · Tourism Management · doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2016.09.009 · Cited by 1,116
What We Know and Don't Know about Online Word-of-Mouth: A Review and Synthesis of the Literature
King, R. A., Racherla, P., & Bush, V. D. (2014) · Journal of Interactive Marketing · doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2014.02.001 · Cited by 1,130
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
