The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
An Analysis of One-Star Online Reviews and Responses in the Washington, D.C., Lodging Market
Abstract
The hotel industry continues to develop strategies for addressing consumer-generated online reviews, and particularly responding to poor reviews, which can have a damaging effect on a hotel’s reputation. To gain a greater understanding of the dynamics of poor reviews, this study analyzed 1,946 one-star reviews from ten popular online review websites, as well as 225 management responses from eighty-six Washington, D.C., hotels. A comprehensive complaint framework found that the most common complaints related to front desk staff, bathroom issues, room cleanliness, and guestroom noise issues. Complaints were also analyzed by hotel characteristics, including chain-scale segments, and reviewer characteristics, including purpose of travel and geographic location. Examining the reviews, highly rated hotels often respond to online complaints with appreciation, apologies, and explanations for what had gone wrong. Compensation adjustments are rarely mentioned by any hotel. The increasingly prominent role of social media necessitates that hotels use online reviews for market research and service recovery opportunities, regardless of whether they respond publicly.
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 Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2529310 · Cited by 81,148
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
The impact of online reviews on hotel booking intentions and perception of trust
Sparks, B. A., & Browning, V. (2011) · Tourism Management · doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2010.12.011 · Cited by 1,688
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
Mattila, A. S., & Mount, D. J. (2003) · International Journal of Hospitality Management · doi:10.1016/s0278-4319(03)00014-8 · Cited by 151
Cited by
Xiang, Z., Du, Q., Ma, Y., & Fan, W. (2017) · Tourism Management · doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2016.10.001 · Cited by 1,051
Airbnb – an exploration of value co-creation experiences in Jamaica
Johnson, A.-G., & Neuhofer, B. (2017) · International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management · doi:10.1108/ijchm-08-2016-0482 · Cited by 184
Twenty‐Five Years of Word‐of‐Mouth Studies: A Critical Review of Tourism Research
Confente, I. (2015) · International Journal of Tourism Research · doi:10.1002/jtr.2029 · Cited by 111
Correlating Languages and Sentiment Analysis on the Basis of Text-based Reviews
García-Pablos, A., Duca, A. L., Cuadros, M., Linaza, M. T., & Marchetti, A. (2016) · Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2016 · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-28231-2_41 · Cited by 14
Metadata
- Authors
- Levy, S. E., Duan, W., & Boo, S.
- Venue
- Cornell Hospitality Quarterly
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2012-12-18
- Volume
- 54
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 49-63
- ISSN
- 1938-9655 (ISSN-L)
- 1938-9663
- OpenAlex
- W2171689662
- Cited by
- 352
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 37.01
- 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: An Analysis of One-Star Online Reviews and Responses in the Washington, D.C., Lodging Market. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/1938965512464513
- The paper
- Levy, S. E., Duan, W., & Boo, S. (2013). An Analysis of One-Star Online Reviews and Responses in the Washington, D.C., Lodging Market. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1177/1938965512464513
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.
