The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Online Product Opinions: Incidence, Evaluation, and Evolution
Open accessAbstract
Whereas recent research has demonstrated the impact of online product ratings and reviews on product sales, we still have a limited understanding of the individual's decision to contribute these opinions. In this research, we empirically model the individual's decision to provide a product rating and investigate factors that influence this decision. Specifically, we consider how previously posted ratings may affect an individual's posting behavior in terms of whether to contribute (incidence) and what to contribute (evaluation), and we identify selection effects that influence the incidence decision and adjustment effects that influence the evaluation decision. Across individuals, our results show that positive ratings environments increase posting incidence, whereas negative ratings environments discourage posting. Our results also indicate important differences across individuals in how they respond to previously posted ratings, with less frequent posters exhibiting bandwagon behavior and more active customers revealing differentiation behavior. These dynamics affect the evolution of online product opinions. Through simulations, we illustrate how the evolution of posted product opinions is shaped by the underlying customer base and show that customer bases with the same median opinion may evolve in substantially different ways because of the presence of a core group of “activists” posting increasingly negative opinions.
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
Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error
Heckman, J. J. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1912352 · Cited by 28,779
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
The antecedents and consequences of customer satisfaction for firms
Anderson, E. W., & Sullivan, M. W. (1993) · Marketing Science · doi:10.1287/mksc.12.2.125 · Cited by 4,610
What Drives Immediate and Ongoing Word of Mouth?
Berger, J., & Schwartz, E. M. (2011) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1509/jmkr.48.5.869 · Cited by 663
Cited by
Digital marketing: a framework, review, and research agenda
Kannan, P. K., & Li, H. “. (2017) · International Journal of Research in Marketing · doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2016.11.006 · Cited by 1,707
Filieri, R. (2015) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.11.006 · Cited by 1,083
Uniting the Tribes: Using Text for Marketing Insight
Berger, J., Humphreys, A., Ludwig, S., Moe, W. W., Netzer, O., & Schweidel, D. A. (2020) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1177/0022242919873106 · Cited by 742
Self-citationHewett, K., Rand, W., Rust, R. T., & van Heerde, H. J. (2016) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1509/jm.15.0033 · Cited by 366
Reichelt, J., Sievert, J., & Jacob, F. (2014) · Journal of Marketing Communications · doi:10.1080/13527266.2013.797758 · Cited by 262
Metadata
- Authors
- Moe, W. W., & Schweidel, D. A.
- Venue
- Marketing Science
- Published
- 2012-05
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 372-386
- ISSN
- 0732-2399 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-548X
- OpenAlex
- W3125993287
- Cited by
- 616
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 84.66
- 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
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.