IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v69y2023i1p377-403.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Square Root Agreement Rule for Incentivizing Truthful Feedback on Online Platforms

Author

Listed:
  • Vijay Kamble

    (Department of Information and Decision Sciences, The University of Illinois Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60607)

  • Nihar Shah

    (School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213)

  • David Marn

    (Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California 94720)

  • Abhay Parekh

    (Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California 94720)

  • Kannan Ramchandran

    (Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California 94720)

Abstract

A major challenge in obtaining evaluations of products or services on e-commerce platforms is eliciting informative responses in the absence of verifiability. This paper proposes the square root agreement rule (SRA): a simple reward mechanism that incentivizes truthful responses to objective evaluations on such platforms. In this mechanism, an agent gets a reward for an evaluation only if the answer matches that of a peer agent, where this reward is inversely proportional to a popularity index of the answer. This index is defined to be the square root of the empirical frequency at which any two agents performing the same evaluation agree on the particular answer across evaluations of similar entities operating on the platform. Rarely agreed-on answers thus earn a higher reward than answers for which agreements are relatively more common. We show that in the many tasks regime, the truthful equilibrium under SRA is strictly payoff-dominant across large classes of natural equilibria that could arise in these settings, thus increasing the likelihood of its adoption. Although there exist other mechanisms achieving such guarantees, they either impose additional assumptions on the response distribution that are not generally satisfied for objective evaluations or they incentivize truthful behavior only if each agent performs a prohibitively large number of evaluations and commits to using the same strategy for each evaluation. SRA is the first known incentive mechanism satisfying such guarantees without imposing any such requirements. Moreover, our empirical findings demonstrate the robustness of the incentive properties of SRA in the presence of mild subjectivity or observational biases in the responses. These properties make SRA uniquely attractive for administering reward-based incentive schemes (e.g., rebates, discounts, reputation scores, etc.) on online platforms.

Suggested Citation

  • Vijay Kamble & Nihar Shah & David Marn & Abhay Parekh & Kannan Ramchandran, 2023. "The Square Root Agreement Rule for Incentivizing Truthful Feedback on Online Platforms," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(1), pages 377-403, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:69:y:2023:i:1:p:377-403
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.2022.4375
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2022.4375
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.2022.4375?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John C. Harsanyi & Reinhard Selten, 1988. "A General Theory of Equilibrium Selection in Games," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262582384, April.
    2. Lingfang (Ivy) Li & Steven Tadelis & Xiaolan Zhou, 2020. "Buying reputation as a signal of quality: Evidence from an online marketplace," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 51(4), pages 965-988, December.
    3. Chris Nosko & Steven Tadelis, 2015. "The Limits of Reputation in Platform Markets: An Empirical Analysis and Field Experiment," NBER Working Papers 20830, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Gneiting, Tilmann & Raftery, Adrian E., 2007. "Strictly Proper Scoring Rules, Prediction, and Estimation," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 102, pages 359-378, March.
    5. Michael Luca, 2017. "Designing Online Marketplaces: Trust and Reputation Mechanisms," Innovation Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 17(1), pages 77-93.
    6. Steven Tadelis, 2016. "Reputation and Feedback Systems in Online Platform Markets," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 8(1), pages 321-340, October.
    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. Alberto Bracci & Jorn Boehnke & Abeer ElBahrawy & Nicola Perra & Alexander Teytelboym & Andrea Baronchelli, 2021. "Macroscopic properties of buyer-seller networks in online marketplaces," Papers 2112.09065, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2022.
    2. Paul Belleflamme & Martin Peitz, 2018. "Inside the Engine Room of Digital Platforms: Reviews, Ratings, and Recommendations," AMSE Working Papers 1806, Aix-Marseille School of Economics, France.
    3. Keser, Claudia & Späth, Maximilian, 2020. "The value of bad ratings: An experiment on the impact of distortions in reputation systems," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 389, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    4. Yan Chen & Peter Cramton & John A. List & Axel Ockenfels, 2021. "Market Design, Human Behavior, and Management," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(9), pages 5317-5348, September.
    5. Hoyer, B. & van Straaten, D., 2022. "Anonymity and self-expression in online rating systems—An experimental analysis," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    6. Greiff, Matthias & Paetzel, Fabian, 2020. "Information about average evaluations spurs cooperation: An experiment on noisy reputation systems," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 334-356.
    7. Andrey Fradkin & David Holtz, 2023. "Do Incentives to Review Help the Market? Evidence from a Field Experiment on Airbnb," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(5), pages 853-865, September.
    8. Hui, Xiang & Klein, Tobias & Stahl, Konrad, 2022. "Learning from Online Ratings," CEPR Discussion Papers 17006, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    9. Karimi, Majid & Zaerpour, Nima, 2022. "Put your money where your forecast is: Supply chain collaborative forecasting with cost-function-based prediction markets," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 300(3), pages 1035-1049.
    10. Claudia Keser & Maximilian Späth, 2020. "The Value of Bad Ratings: An Experiment on the Impact of Distortions in Reputation Systems," CIRANO Working Papers 2020s-22, CIRANO.
    11. Lingfang (Ivy) Li & Steven Tadelis & Xiaolan Zhou, 2020. "Buying reputation as a signal of quality: Evidence from an online marketplace," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 51(4), pages 965-988, December.
    12. Gesche, Tobias, 2018. "Reference Price Shifts and Customer Antagonism: Evidence from Reviews for Online Auctions," VfS Annual Conference 2018 (Freiburg, Breisgau): Digital Economy 181650, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    13. Keser, Claudia & Späth, Maximilian, 2021. "The value of bad ratings: An experiment on the impact of distortions in reputation systems," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    14. Catherine Tucker, 2020. "Comment on "Digital Infrastructure"," NBER Chapters, in: Economic Analysis and Infrastructure Investment, pages 448-452, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Solimine, Philip & Isaac, R. Mark, 2023. "Reputation and market structure in experimental platforms," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 205(C), pages 528-559.
    16. Daniel W. Elfenbein & Raymond Fisman & Brian McManus, 2019. "Does Cheap Talk Affect Market Outcomes? Evidence from eBay," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 11(4), pages 305-326, October.
    17. Rüdiger Bachmann & Gabriel Ehrlich & Ying Fan & Dimitrije Ruzic & Benjamin Leard, 2023. "Firms and Collective Reputation: a Study of the Volkswagen Emissions Scandal," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 21(2), pages 484-525.
    18. Dominik Gutt & Jürgen Neumann & Wael Jabr & Dennis Kundisch, 2020. "The Fate of the App: Economic Implications of Updating under Reputation Resetting," Working Papers Dissertations 76, Paderborn University, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics.
    19. Braesemann, Fabian & Stephany, Fabian & Teutloff, Ole & Kässi, Otto & Graham, Mark & Lehdonvirta, Vili, 2021. "The polarisation of remote work," SocArXiv q8a96, Center for Open Science.
    20. Andreas J. Steur & Mischa Seiter, 2021. "Properties of feedback mechanisms on digital platforms: an exploratory study," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 91(4), pages 479-526, May.

    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:inm:ormnsc:v:69:y:2023:i:1:p:377-403. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.