IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nat/nathum/v9y2025i3d10.1038_s41562-024-02003-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Gender rating gap in online reviews

Author

Listed:
  • Andreas Bayerl

    (Erasmus University Rotterdam)

  • Yaniv Dover

    (Hebrew University
    Hebrew University)

  • Hila Riemer

    (Ben-Gurion University of the Negev)

  • Daniel Shapira

    (Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
    Permanent Adjunct Research Faculty at the University of Mannheim Business School)

Abstract

Although online reviews are used by many people to make decisions, these reviews may be biased. On the basis of 1.2 billion observations across five leading online review platforms and two lab studies (n = 1,172 and n = 1,165; US respondents fluent in English), we provide evidence for a consistent and systematic gender rating gap: women’s mean online review ratings are significantly more favourable than men’s. We suggest that although men and women, on average, generally do not differ in their ‘real’ attitudes, their ratings do differ when it comes to online reviews. Our lab studies revealed that such differences are due to gender differences in the propensity to share negative attitudes online, possibly due to women’s greater concern about social consequences. Our findings highlight the need for societal change to create conditions in which people, particularly women, feel comfortable publicly expressing genuine attitudes, especially in cases of dissatisfaction, without being concerned about the consequences.

Suggested Citation

  • Andreas Bayerl & Yaniv Dover & Hila Riemer & Daniel Shapira, 2025. "Gender rating gap in online reviews," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 9(3), pages 507-520, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:nat:nathum:v:9:y:2025:i:3:d:10.1038_s41562-024-02003-6
    DOI: 10.1038/s41562-024-02003-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-024-02003-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1038/s41562-024-02003-6?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.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:nat:nathum:v:9:y:2025:i:3:d:10.1038_s41562-024-02003-6. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.nature.com .

    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.