IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/joreco/v32y2016icp96-108.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assisting consumers in detecting fake reviews: The role of identity information disclosure and consensus

Author

Listed:
  • Munzel, Andreas

Abstract

Current discussions in academia and in the press increase consumers’ awareness of potentially deceptive online reviews. The increasing practice of fake reviews posted online not only jeopardizes the credibility of review sites as important information sources for individuals but also endangers a valuable source of information for service providers. Two studies shed further light on the role of consensus and identity-related information in assisting consumers detect potentially faked reviews. In one preliminary study, a sample of 4826 rejected and 4881 published online reviews was analyzed to investigate the differences in the disclosure of author-related information such as name and age as well as star ratings across those reviews. In the main study, a 3 (identity disclosure) x 2 (consensus) x 2 (priming of fake reviews) experiment was carried out with 390 respondents. The results highlight the relevance of the review's consensus in relation to the overall rating of previous reviews and corroborate the results of the preliminary study from the perspective of an internet user: the value of the amount of available information on the review's author in assisting individuals detect potential fake reviews. This study complements research in computer science by highlighting the relevance of contextual—in addition to textual—indicators that assist internet users in detecting potentially deceptive online reviews.

Suggested Citation

  • Munzel, Andreas, 2016. "Assisting consumers in detecting fake reviews: The role of identity information disclosure and consensus," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 96-108.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:joreco:v:32:y:2016:i:c:p:96-108
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.06.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0969698916300984
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.06.002?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dina Mayzlin & Yaniv Dover & Judith Chevalier, 2014. "Promotional Reviews: An Empirical Investigation of Online Review Manipulation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(8), pages 2421-2455, August.
    2. Campbell, Margaret C & Kirmani, Amna, 2000. "Consumers' Use of Persuasion Knowledge: The Effects of Accessibility and Cognitive Capacity on Perceptions of an Influence Agent," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 27(1), pages 69-83, June.
    3. Gary E. Bolton & Elena Katok & Axel Ockenfels, 2004. "How Effective Are Electronic Reputation Mechanisms? An Experimental Investigation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(11), pages 1587-1602, November.
    4. Sparks, Beverley A. & So, Kevin Kam Fung & Bradley, Graham L., 2016. "Responding to negative online reviews: The effects of hotel responses on customer inferences of trust and concern," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 74-85.
    5. Friestad, Marian & Wright, Peter, 1994. "The Persuasion Knowledge Model: How People Cope with Persuasion Attempts," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 21(1), pages 1-31, June.
    6. Kapetanios, George & Mitchell, James & Shin, Yongcheol, 2014. "A nonlinear panel data model of cross-sectional dependence," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 179(2), pages 134-157.
    7. repec:cup:judgdm:v:5:y:2010:i:5:p:411-419 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Frederico Belo & Xiaoji Lin & Maria Ana Vitorino, 2014. "Brand Capital and Firm Value," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 17(1), pages 150-169, January.
    9. Weiner, Bernard, 2000. "Attributional Thoughts about Consumer Behavior," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 27(3), pages 382-387, December.
    10. Gupta, Pranjal & Harris, Judy, 2010. "How e-WOM recommendations influence product consideration and quality of choice: A motivation to process information perspective," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 63(9-10), pages 1041-1049, September.
    11. Oliver, Richard L & Bearden, William O, 1985. "Crossover Effects in the Theory of Reasoned Action: A Moderating Influence Attempt," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 12(3), pages 324-340, December.
    12. Benedicktus, Ray L., 2011. "The effects of 3rd party consensus information on service expectations and online trust," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 64(8), pages 846-853, August.
    13. Bin Li & Steven C. H. Hoi, 2012. "Online Portfolio Selection: A Survey," Papers 1212.2129, arXiv.org, revised May 2013.
    14. Chris Forman & Anindya Ghose & Batia Wiesenfeld, 2008. "Examining the Relationship Between Reviews and Sales: The Role of Reviewer Identity Disclosure in Electronic Markets," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 19(3), pages 291-313, September.
    15. Justin Malbon, 2013. "Taking Fake Online Consumer Reviews Seriously," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 36(2), pages 139-157, June.
    16. Benedicktus, Ray L. & Brady, Michael K. & Darke, Peter R. & Voorhees, Clay M., 2010. "Conveying Trustworthiness to Online Consumers: Reactions to Consensus, Physical Store Presence, Brand Familiarity, and Generalized Suspicion," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 86(4), pages 322-335.
    17. Pan, Yue & Zhang, Jason Q., 2011. "Born Unequal: A Study of the Helpfulness of User-Generated Product Reviews," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 87(4), pages 598-612.
    18. Paul A. Pavlou & Angelika Dimoka, 2006. "The Nature and Role of Feedback Text Comments in Online Marketplaces: Implications for Trust Building, Price Premiums, and Seller Differentiation," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 17(4), pages 392-414, December.
    19. Jiménez, Fernando R. & Mendoza, Norma A., 2013. "Too Popular to Ignore: The Influence of Online Reviews on Purchase Intentions of Search and Experience Products," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 226-235.
    20. Bambauer-Sachse, Silke & Mangold, Sabrina, 2013. "Do consumers still believe what is said in online product reviews? A persuasion knowledge approach," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 373-381.
    21. Berinsky, Adam J. & Huber, Gregory A. & Lenz, Gabriel S., 2012. "Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 351-368, July.
    22. Friestad, Marian & Wright, Peter, 1995. "Persuasion Knowledge: Lay People's and Researchers' Beliefs about the Psychology of Advertising," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 22(1), pages 62-74, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Könsgen, Raoul & Schaarschmidt, Mario & Ivens, Stefan & Munzel, Andreas, 2018. "Finding Meaning in Contradiction on Employee Review Sites — Effects of Discrepant Online Reviews on Job Application Intentions," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 165-177.
    2. Ana Babić Rosario & Kristine Valck & Francesca Sotgiu, 2020. "Conceptualizing the electronic word-of-mouth process: What we know and need to know about eWOM creation, exposure, and evaluation," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 422-448, May.
    3. Muhammad Rifki Shihab & Audry Pragita Putri, 2019. "Negative online reviews of popular products: understanding the effects of review proportion and quality on consumers’ attitude and intention to buy," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 159-187, March.
    4. King, Robert Allen & Racherla, Pradeep & Bush, Victoria D., 2014. "What We Know and Don't Know About Online Word-of-Mouth: A Review and Synthesis of the Literature," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 167-183.
    5. Bi, Sheng & Liu, Zhiying & Usman, Khalid, 2017. "The influence of online information on investing decisions of reward-based crowdfunding," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 10-18.
    6. Dominik Gutt & Jürgen Neumann & Steffen Zimmermann & Dennis Kundisch & Jianqing Chen, 2018. "Design of Review Systems - A Strategic Instrument to shape Online Review Behavior and Economic Outcomes," Working Papers Dissertations 42, Paderborn University, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics.
    7. Bin Guo & Shasha Zhou, 2017. "What makes population perception of review helpfulness: an information processing perspective," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 585-608, December.
    8. Meek, Stephanie & Wilk, Violetta & Lambert, Claire, 2021. "A big data exploration of the informational and normative influences on the helpfulness of online restaurant reviews," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 354-367.
    9. Jiménez, Fernando R. & Mendoza, Norma A., 2013. "Too Popular to Ignore: The Influence of Online Reviews on Purchase Intentions of Search and Experience Products," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 226-235.
    10. Harrison-Walker, L. Jean & Jiang, Ying, 2023. "Suspicion of online product reviews as fake: Cues and consequences," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    11. Costa Filho, Murilo & Nogueira Rafael, Diego & Salmonson Guimarães Barros, Lucia & Mesquita, Eduardo, 2023. "Mind the fake reviews! Protecting consumers from deception through persuasion knowledge acquisition," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    12. Warut Khern-am-nuai & Karthik Kannan & Hossein Ghasemkhani, 2018. "Extrinsic versus Intrinsic Rewards for Contributing Reviews in an Online Platform," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 29(4), pages 871-892, December.
    13. Matthew Walker & Bob Heere & Milena Parent & Dan Drane, 2010. "Social Responsibility and the Olympic Games: The Mediating Role of Consumer Attributions," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 95(4), pages 659-680, September.
    14. Koukova, Nevena T. & Wang, Rebecca Jen-Hui & Isaac, Mathew S., 2023. "“If you loved our product”: Do conditional review requests harm retailer loyalty?," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 99(1), pages 85-101.
    15. Mohammadreza Mousavizadeh & Mehrdad Koohikamali & Mohammad Salehan & Dam J. Kim, 2022. "An Investigation of Peripheral and Central Cues of Online Customer Review Voting and Helpfulness through the Lens of Elaboration Likelihood Model," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 211-231, February.
    16. Natalia Levina & Manuel Arriaga, 2014. "Distinction and Status Production on User-Generated Content Platforms: Using Bourdieu’s Theory of Cultural Production to Understand Social Dynamics in Online Fields," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 25(3), pages 468-488, September.
    17. Guha Majumder, Madhumita & Dutta Gupta, Sangita & Paul, Justin, 2022. "Perceived usefulness of online customer reviews: A review mining approach using machine learning & exploratory data analysis," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 147-164.
    18. Zhuang, Mengzhou & Cui, Geng & Peng, Ling, 2018. "Manufactured opinions: The effect of manipulating online product reviews," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 24-35.
    19. Ketron, Seth, 2017. "Investigating the effect of quality of grammar and mechanics (QGAM) in online reviews: The mediating role of reviewer crediblity," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 51-59.
    20. Raffaele Filieri & Elisabetta Raguseo & Claudio Vitari, 2018. "What moderates the influence of extremely negative ratings? The role of review and reviewer characteristics," Post-Print halshs-01923196, HAL.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:joreco:v:32:y:2016:i:c:p:96-108. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-retailing-and-consumer-services .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.