The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Overcoming the J-shaped distribution of product reviews
Open accessAbstract
Introduction While product review systems that collect and disseminate opinions about products from recent buyers (Table 1) are valuable forms of word-of-mouth communication, evidence suggests that they are overwhelmingly positive. Kadet notes that most products receive almost five stars. Chevalier and Mayzlin also show that book reviews on Amazon and Barnes & Noble are overwhelmingly positive. Is this because all products are simply outstanding? However, a graphical representation of product reviews reveals a J-shaped distribution (Figure 1) with mostly 5-star ratings, some 1-star ratings, and hardly any ratings in between. What explains this J-shaped distribution? If products are indeed outstanding, why do we also see many 1-star ratings? Why aren't there any product ratings in between? Is it because there are no "average" products? Or, is it because there are biases in product review systems? If so, how can we overcome them? The J-shaped distribution also creates some fundamental statistical problems. Conventional wisdom assumes that the average of the product ratings is a sufficient proxy of product quality and product sales. Many studies used the average of product ratings to predict sales. However, these studies showed inconsistent results: some found product reviews to influence product sales, while others did not. The average is statistically meaningful only when it is based on a unimodal distribution, or when it is based on a symmetric bimodal distribution. However, since product review systems have an asymmetric bimodal (J-shaped) distribution, the average is a poor proxy of product quality. This report aims to first demonstrate the existence of a J-shaped distribution, second to identify the sources of bias that cause the J-shaped distribution, third to propose ways to overcome these biases, and finally to show that overcoming these biases helps product review systems better predict future product sales. We tested the distribution of product ratings for three product categories (books, DVDs, videos) with data from Amazon collected between February--July 2005: 78%, 73%, and 72% of the product ratings for books, DVDs, and videos are greater or equal to four stars (Figure 1), confirming our proposition that product reviews are overwhelmingly positive. Figure 1 (left graph) shows a J-shaped distribution of all products. This contradicts the law of "large numbers" that would imply a normal distribution. Figure 1 (middle graph) shows the distribution of three randomly-selected products in each category with over 2,000 reviews. The results show that these reviews still have a J-shaped distribution, implying that the J-shaped distribution is not due to a "small number" problem. Figure 1 (right graph) shows that even products with a median average review (around 3-stars) follow the same pattern.
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
Cites
The Effect of Word of Mouth on Sales: Online Book Reviews
Chevalier, J. A., & Mayzlin, D. (2006) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1509/jmkr.43.3.345 · Cited by 6,003
Cited by
Zhang, K. Z. K., Zhao, S. J., Cheung, C. M. K., & Lee, M. K. O. (2014) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/j.dss.2014.08.005 · Cited by 781
On Product Uncertainty in Online Markets: Theory and Evidence1
Dimoka, A., Hong, Y., & Pavlou, P. A. (2012) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/41703461 · Cited by 682
Self-citationHu, N., Koh, N. S., & Reddy, S. K. (2014) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/j.dss.2013.07.009 · Cited by 406
Self-citationMohammad, S. M. (2016) · Emotion Measurement · doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-100508-8.00009-6 · Cited by 391
A study of factors that contribute to online review helpfulness
Huang, A. H., Chen, K., Yen, D. C., & Tran, T. P. (2015) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.010 · Cited by 364
Metadata
- Authors
- Hu, N., Zhang, J., & Pavlou, P. A.
- Venue
- Communications of the ACM
- Published
- 2009-10
- Volume
- 52
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 144-147
- ISSN
- 0001-0782 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-7317
- OpenAlex
- W2114068176
- Cited by
- 686
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 29.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Overcoming the J-shaped distribution of product reviews. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/1562764.1562800
- The paper
- Hu, N., Zhang, J., & Pavlou, P. A. (2009). Overcoming the J-shaped distribution of product reviews. Communications of the ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1562764.1562800
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.