The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Popular Appeal Versus Expert Judgments of Motion Pictures
Abstract
Journal Article Popular Appeal versus Expert Judgments of Motion Pictures Get access Morris B. Holbrook Morris B. Holbrook Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic PubMed Google Scholar Journal of Consumer Research, Volume 26, Issue 2, September 1999, Pages 144–155, https://doi.org/10.1086/209556 Published: 01 September 1999 Article history Received: 01 December 1997 Revision received: 01 March 1999 Published: 01 September 1999
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Cattani, G., & Ferriani, S. (2008) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1070.0350 · Cited by 659
A Comparison of Expert and Nonexpert Raters Using the Consensual Assessment Technique
Kaufman, J. C., Baer, J., Cole, J. C., & Sexton∗, J. D. (2008) · Creativity Research Journal · doi:10.1080/10400410802059929 · Cited by 374
Shifting evaluations: The impact of status increase on quality evaluations in the movie industry
Chui, H. (2024) · International Journal of Business Strategy and Social Sciences · doi:10.18488/171.v7i1.3847
Metadata
- Authors
- Holbrook, M. B.
- Venue
- Journal of Consumer Research
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1999-09
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 144-155
- ISSN
- 0093-5301 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5277
- OpenAlex
- W2084422199
- Cited by
- 323
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 6.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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.
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Popular Appeal Versus Expert Judgments of Motion Pictures. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/209556
- The paper
- Holbrook, M. B. (1999). Popular Appeal Versus Expert Judgments of Motion Pictures. Journal of Consumer Research. https://doi.org/10.1086/209556
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
