Yongnam Jung
ABSTRACT
Studies have shown that the effects of fake reviews can be decided by how platforms operate such as how they display online reviews. A meta-analytic study of communication research suggests that the timing of communication source identification affects message credibility. The current study suggests implementing reviewer information, used as criteria in a fake review detection algorithm, in online reviews and adjusting the identification timing of this information. The study findings show that 1) the number of accumulated helpful votes for the reviewer positively influences reviewer credibility, 2) perceived review authenticity mediates the relationship between reviewer credibility and users’ intention to adopt the review, 3) reviewer identification timing affects the user's attitude about the product, such that viewing the reviewer's information alongside the review helps users consolidate their review evaluation. Implementing the recommended online review interface design based on the findings of this study can diminish the possible impact of fake reviews.
- Federal Trade Commission. Protecting America's Consumers. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2022/10/ftc-explore-rulemaking-combat-fake-reviews-other-deceptive-endorsements Google Scholar
- Ashley Summerfield (2022). EXPRESS. https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/science-technology/1695246/How-spot-fake-Amazon-reviews-Black-Friday Google Scholar
- Mike Winters (2022). CNBC. 6 tips for spotting fake online reviews during the holiday shopping season. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/23/tips-for-spotting-fake-online-reviews.html Google Scholar
- Yuanyuan Wu, Eric W.T. Ngai, Pengkun Wu, and Chong Wu. 2020. Fake online reviews: Literature review, synthesis, and directions for future research. Decision Support Systems 132: 113280. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Saba Salehi-Esfahani and Ahmet Bulent Ozturk. 2018. Negative reviews: Formation, spread, and halt of opportunistic behavior. International Journal of Hospitality Management 74: 138–146.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jonathan Marciano (2021). THE DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION OF BUSINESS. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/08/fake-online-reviews-are-a-152-billion-problem-heres-how-to-silence-them/Google Scholar
- Rodrigo Barbado, Oscar Araque, and Carlos A. Iglesias. 2019. A framework for fake review detection in online consumer electronics retailers. Information Processing & Management 56, 4: 1234–1244.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Arjun Mukherjee, Vivek Venkataraman, Bing Liu, and Natalie Glance. 2013. What Yelp Fake Review Filter Might Be Doing? Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media 7, 1: 409–418.Google Scholar
- Hu, N., Bose, I., Koh, N. S., & Liu, L. (2012). Manipulation of online reviews: An analysis of ratings, readability, and sentiments. Decision Support Systems, 52(3), 674–684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2011.11.002 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Saba Salehi-Esfahani and Ahmet Bulent Ozturk. 2018. Negative reviews: Formation, spread, and halt of opportunistic behavior. International Journal of Hospitality Management 74: 138–146.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Dongsong Zhang, Lina Zhou, Juan Luo Kehoe, and Isil Yakut Kilic. 2016. What Online Reviewer Behaviors Really Matter? Effects of Verbal and Nonverbal Behaviors on Detection of Fake Online Reviews. Journal of Management Information Systems 33, 2: 456–481.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Thi-Kim-Hien Le, Yi-Zhen Li, and Sheng-Tun Li. 2022. Do Reviewers’ Words and Behaviors Help Detect Fake Online Reviews and Spammers? Evidence From a Hierarchical Model. IEEE Access 10: 42181–42197.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ana Reyes-Menendez, Jose Ramon Saura, and Juan Gabriel Martinez-Navalon. 2019. The Impact of e-WOM on Hotels Management Reputation: Exploring TripAdvisor Review Credibility With the ELM Model. IEEE Access 7: 68868–68877.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Naveen Kumar, Deepak Venugopal, Liangfei Qiu, and Subodha Kumar. 2018. Detecting Review Manipulation on Online Platforms with Hierarchical Supervised Learning. Journal of Management Information Systems 35, 1: 350–380.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Chanthika Pornpitakpan. 2004. The Persuasiveness of Source Credibility: A Critical Review of Five Decades’ Evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 34, 2: 243–281.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Elizabeth J. Wilson and Daniel L. Sherrell. 1993. Source effects in communication and persuasion research: A meta-analysis of effect size. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 21, 2: 101–112.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Mike Allen, Lisa Adamski, Michael Bates, 2002. Effect of timing of communicator identification and level of source credibility on attitude. Communication Research Reports 19, 1: 46–55.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Daniel J. O'keefe. 1987. The persuasive effects of delaying identification of high‐and low‐credibility communicators: A meta‐analytic review. Central States Speech Journal 38, 2: 63–72.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Charles D. Ward and Elliott McGinnies. 1974. Persuasive effects of early and late mention of credible and noncredible sources. Journal of Psychology 86, 1: 17–23.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Allan Cheng Chieh Lu, Dogan Gursoy, and Carol Yirong Lu. 2015. Authenticity perceptions, brand equity and brand choice intention: The case of ethnic restaurants. International Journal of Hospitality Management 50: 36–45.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Julie Napoli, Sonia J. Dickinson, Michael B. Beverland, and Francis Farrelly. 2014. Measuring consumer-based brand authenticity. Journal of Business Research 67, 6: 1090–1098.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Andrew J. Flanagin, Stephan Winter, and Miriam J. Metzger. 2020. Making sense of credibility in complex information environments: the role of message sidedness, information source, and thinking styles in credibility evaluation online. Information, Communication & Society 23, 7: 1038–1056.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Amazon. https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=GF49TDCLY9PVQB8R Google Scholar
- Chunyu Li, Geng Cui, and Ling Peng. 2018. Tailoring management response to negative reviews: The effectiveness of accommodative versus defensive responses. Computers in Human Behavior 84: 272–284.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jacob Hornik, Rinat Shaanan Satchi, Ludovica Cesareo, and Alberto Pastore. 2015. Information dissemination via electronic word-of-mouth: Good news travels fast, bad news travels faster! Computers in Human Behavior 45: 273–280.Google Scholar
- Paulo B. Goes, Mingfeng Lin, and Ching-man Au Yeung. 2014. “Popularity Effect” in User-Generated Content: Evidence from Online Product Reviews. Information Systems Research 25, 2: 222–238.Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Not To Be Deceived? Timing Matters: Trustworthy Online Review Design
Recommendations
Is Interface Quality and Information Quality on Online Review Matters?
ICONETSI '22: Proceedings of the 2022 International Conference on Engineering and Information Technology for Sustainable IndustryThe use of e-marketplace in Indonesia has been growing rapidly for the last decade. The practicality has been the main reason for customers to utilize their shopping activity through e-marketplace. This study aimed to identify and investigate the ...
Matters of design
http://cacm.acm.org/blogs/blog-cacm
The Communications Web site, http://cacm.acm.org, features more than a dozen bloggers in the BLOG@CACM community. In each issue of Communications, we'll publish selected posts or excerpts.
twitter
Follow us on Twitter at ...
Comments