Do Online Friends Bring Out the Best in Us? The Effect of Friend Contributions on Online Review Provision

References

• Altermatt ER, Pomerantz EM (2005) The implications of having high-achieving versus low-achieving friends: a longitudinal analysis. Soc. Development 14(1):61–81.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Anderson C, Kilduff GJ (2009) The pursuit of status in social groups. Current Directions Psych. Sci. 18(5):295–298.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Anderson E, Simester D (2014) Reviews without a purchase: Low ratings, loyal customers, and deception. J. Marketing Res. 51(3):249–269.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Andreoni J (1989) Giving with impure altruism: Applications to charity and Ricardian equivalence. J. Political Econom. 97(6):1447–1458.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Andreoni J (1990) Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm-glow giving. Econom. J. (London) 100(401):464–477.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Aral S, Walker D (2011) Creating social contagion through viral product design: A randomized trial of peer influence in networks. Management Sci. 57(9):1623–1639.Link, Google Scholar
• Bapna R, Umyarov A (2015) Do your online friends make you pay? A randomized field experiment on peer influence in online social networks. Management Sci. 61(8):1902–1920.Link, Google Scholar
• Bernheim BD (1994) A theory of conformity. J. Political Econom. 102(5):841–877.Crossref, Google Scholar
• BrightLocal (2018) Local consumer review survey. Accessed July 1, 2020, https://www.brightlocal.com/research/local-consumer-review-survey.Google Scholar
• Burtch G, Hong Y, Bapna R, Griskevicius V (2018) Stimulating online reviews by combining financial incentives and social norms. Management Sci. 64(5):2065–2082.Link, Google Scholar
• Carpenter JP (2004) When in Rome: Conformity and the provision of public goods. J. Socio-Econom. 33(4):395–408.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chen Y, Harper M, Konstan J, Li SX (2010) Social comparisons and contributions to online communities: A field experiment on MovieLens, Amer. Econom. Rev. 100(4):1358–1398.Google Scholar
• Cook TD, Deng Y, Morgano E (2007) Friendship influences during early adolescence: The special role of friends’ grade point average. J. Res. Adolescents 17(2):325–356.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Darley J, Latané B (1968) Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 8(4):377–383.Google Scholar
• Dellarocas C, Narayan R (2006) A statistical measure of a population’s propensity to engage in post-purchase online word-of-mouth. Statist. Sci. 21(2):277–285.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dellarocas C, Gao G, Narayan R (2010) Are consumers more likely to contribute online reviews for hit or niche products? J. Management Inform. Systems 27(2):127–158.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dellarocas C, Zhang X, Awad N (2007) Exploring the value of online product reviews in forecasting sales: The case of motion pictures. J. Interactive Marketing 21(4):23–45.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dennis AR, Pootheri SK, Natarajan VL (1998) Lessons from the early adopters of web groupware. J. Management Inform. Systems 14(4):65–86.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dewan S, Ho Y, Ramaprasad J (2017) Popularity or proximity: Characterizing the nature of social influence in an online music community. Inform. Systems Res. 28(1):117–136.Link, Google Scholar
• Dey EL (1997) Undergraduate political attitudes. J. Higher Ed. 68(4):398–413.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dichter E (1966) How word-of-mouth advertising works. Harvard Bus. Rev. 44(6):147–160.Google Scholar
• Diekmann A (1985) Volunteer’s dilemma. J. Conflict Resolution 29(4):605–610.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Donath J (2002) Identity and Deception in the Virtual Community, Communities in Cyberspace (Routledge, London).Google Scholar
• Duan W, Gu B, Whinston A (2008) Do online reviews matter?—An empirical investigation of panel data. Decision Support Systems 45(4):1007–1016.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Forman C, Ghose A, Wiesenfeld B (2008) Examining the relationship between reviews and sales: The role of reviewer identity disclosure in electronic markets. Inform. Systems Res. 19(3):291–313.Link, Google Scholar
• Fortune (2016) A lack of online reviews could kill your business. Fortune (October 26), http://fortune.com/2016/10/23/online-reviews-business-marketing.Google Scholar
• Ghasemkhani H, Kannan K, Khernamnuai W (2016) Extrinsic versus intrinsic rewards to participate in a crowd context: An analysis of a review platform. Working paper, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.Google Scholar
• Ghose A, Ipeirotis P (2011) Estimating the helpfulness and economic impact of product reviews: Mining text and reviewer characteristics. IEEE Trans. Knowledge Data Engrg. 23(10):1498–1512.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Goes PB, Guo C, Lin M (2016) Do incentive hierarchies induce user effort? Evidence from an online knowledge exchange. Inform. Systems Res. 27(3):497–516.Link, Google Scholar
• Goes PO, Lin M, Yeung CA (2014) ‘Popularity effect’ in user-generated contents: Evidence from online product reviews. Inform. Systems Res. 25(2):222–238.Link, Google Scholar
• Harbaugh W, Mayr U, Burghart D (2007) Neural responses to taxation and voluntary giving reveal motives for charitable donations. Science 316(5831):1622–1625.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hardy CL, Van Vugt M (2006) Nice guys finish first: The competitive altruism hypothesis. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. 32(10):1402–1413.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hennig-Thurau T, Gwinner K, Walsh G (2004) Electronic word-of-mouth via consumer-opinion platforms: What motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the internet? J. Interactive Marketing 18(1):38–52.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hiltz SR, Wellman B (1997) Asynchronous learning networks as a virtual classroom. Comm. ACM 40(9):44–49.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Huang N, Hong Y, Burtch G (2017) Social network integration and user content generation: evidence from natural experiments. MIS Quart. 41(4):1035–1058.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hubbard J, Harbaugh W, Srivastava S (2016) A general benevolence dimension that links neural, psychological, economic, and life-span data on altruistic tendencies. J. Experiment. Psych. 145(10):1351–1358.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Iyengar R, Van den Bulte C, Valente WT (2011) Opinion leadership and social contagion in new product diffusion. Marketing Sci. 30(2):195–212.Link, Google Scholar
• Jabr W, Mookerjee R, Tan Y, Mookerjee V (2014) Leveraging philanthropic behavior for customer support: The case of user support forums. MIS Quart. 38(1):187–208.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jones C, Hesterly W, Borgatti S (1997) A general theory of network governance: Exchange conditions and social mechanisms. Acad. Management Rev. 22(4):911–945.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Karau S, Williams K (1993) Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 65(4):681–706.Crossref, Google Scholar
• King G, Zeng L (2001) Logistic regression in rare events data. Political Anal. 9:137–163.Crossref, Google Scholar
• King G, Zeng L (2002) Estimating risk and rate levels, ratios, and differences in case-control studies. Statist. Medicine 21:1409–1427.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lee GM, Qiu L, Whinston AB (2016) A friend like me: Modeling network formation in a location-based social network. J. Management Inform. Systems 33(4):1008–1033.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lee Y, Hosanagar K, Tan Y (2015) Do I follow my friends or the crowd? Information cascades in online movie rating. Management Sci. 61(9):2241–2258.Link, Google Scholar
• Levina N, Arriaga M (2014) Distinction and status production on user-generated content platforms: Using Bourdieu’s theory of cultural production to understand social dynamics in online fields. Inform. Systems Res. 25(3):468–488.Link, Google Scholar
• Liu D, Brass D, Lu Y, Chen D (2015) Friendships in online peer-to-peer lending: Pipes, prisms, and relational herding. MIS Quart. 39(3):729–742.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Liu J, Cao Y, Lin C, Huang Y, Zhou M (2007) Low-quality product review detection in opinion summarization. Eisner J, ed. Computational Linguistics (Association for Computational Linguistics, Prague, Czech Republic), 334–342.Google Scholar
• Lu Y, Tsaparas P, Ntoulas A, Polanyi L (2010) Exploiting social context for review quality prediction. Rappa M, Jones P, Freire J, Chakrabarti S, eds. Proc. 19th Internat. Conf. World Wide Web (Association for Computing Machinery, New York), 691–700.Google Scholar
• Luca M (2016) Reviews, reputation, and revenue: The case of Yelp.com. Working paper, Harvard Business School, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Ma X, Khansa L, Deng Y, Kim SS (2013) Impact of prior reviews on the subsequent review process in reputation systems. J. Management Inform. Systems 30(3):279–310.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Milinski M, Semmann D, Krambeck HJ (2002) Reputation helps solve the ‘tragedy of the commons’. Nature 415(6870):424–426.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Moe WW, Schweidel DA (2012) Online product opinions: Incidence, evaluation, and evolution. Marketing Sci. 31(3): 372–386.Google Scholar
• Moretti E (2011) Social learning and peer effects in consumption: Evidence from movie sales. Rev. Econom. Stud. 78(1):356–393.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mudambi S, Schuff D (2010) What makes a helpful review? A study of customer reviews on Amazon.com. MIS Quart. 34(1):185–200.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Otterbacher J (2009) Helpfulness’ in online communities: A measure of message quality. Olsen D, Arthur R, eds. SIGCHI Conf. Human Factor Comput. Systems (Association for Computing Machinery, New York), 955–964.Google Scholar
• Pan Y, Zhang JQ (2011) Born unequal: A study of the helpfulness of user-generated product reviews. J. Retailing 87(4):598–612.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Qiu L, Shi Z, Whinston A (2018) Learning from your friends ’ check-ins : An empirical study of location-based social networks. Inform. Systems Res. 29(4):1044–1061.Link, Google Scholar
• ReviewMeta.com (2016) Analysis of 7 million Amazon reviews: Customers who receive free or discounted item much more likely to write positive review. Accessed July 1, 2020, https://reviewmeta.com/blog/analysis-of-7-million-amazon-reviews-customers-who-receive-free-or-discounted-item-much-more-likely-to-write-positive-review. Google Scholar
• ReviewTrackers (2018) 2018 ReviewTrackers online reviews survey. Accessed July 1, 2020, https://www.reviewtrackers.com/reports/online-reviews-survey.Google Scholar
• Ridings CM, Gefen D (2006) Virtual community attraction: Why people hang out online. J. Comput. Mediated Commun. 10(1).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roberts G (1998) Competitive altruism: From reciprocity to the handicap principle. Proc. Biol. Sci. 265(1394):427–431.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shang J, Croson R (2009) A field experiment in charitable contribution: The impact of social information on the voluntary provision of public goods. Econom. J. 119(540):1422–1439.Google Scholar
• Sridhar S, Srinivasan R (2012) Social influence effects in online product ratings. J. Marketing 76(5):70–88.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stephen A, Bart Y, Plessis CD (2012) Does paying for online product reviews pay off? The effects of monetary incentives on content creators and consumers. Adv. Consumer Res. 40:228–231.Google Scholar
• Tsvetkova M, Macy MW (2014) The social contagion of generosity. PLoS One 9(2):e87275.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tucker C, Zhang J (2007) Long tail or steep tail? a field investigation into how online popularity information affects the distribution of customer choices. Working paper, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Underwood H, Findlay B (2004) Internet relationships and their impact on primary relationships. Behav. Change 21(02):127–140.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Vesterlund L (2003) The informational value of sequential fundraising. J. Public Econom. 87(3–4):627–657.Google Scholar
• Vesterlund L (2006) Why do people give. Powell WW, Steinberg RS, eds. The Nonprofit Sector: A Research Handbook, 2nd ed. (Yale University Press, New Haven, CT).Google Scholar
• Wang A, Zhang M, Hann I (2018) Socially nudged: A quasi-experimental study of friends’ social influence in online product ratings. Inform. Systems Res. 29(3):641–655.Link, Google Scholar
• Wang Y, Goes P, Wei Z, Zeng D (2017) Production of online word-of-mouth: Peer effects and the moderation of user characteristics. Production Oper. Management 28(7):1621–1640.Google Scholar
• Wang Z (2010) Anonymity, social image, and the competition for volunteers: A case study of the online market for reviews. BE J. Econom. Anal. Policy 10(1):1–34.Google Scholar
• Wasko MM, Faraj S (2005) Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. MIS Quart. 29(1):35–57.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wasko MM, Teigland R, Faraj S (2009) The provision of online public goods: examining social structure in an electronic network of practice. Decision Support Systems 47(3):254–265.Google Scholar
• Willer R (2009) Groups reward individual sacrifice: The status solution to the collective action problem. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 74(1):23–43.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Witty CJ, Urla J, Leslie LM, Snyder M, Glomb TM, Carman KG, Rodell JB, Agypt B, Christensen RK, Nesbit R (2013) Social influences and the private provision of public goods: Evidence from charitable contributions in the workplace. Stanford Inst. Econom. Policy Res. 41(5):49–62.Google Scholar
• Wu C, Che H, Chan T, Lu X (2015) The economic value of online reviews. Marketing Sci. 34(5):739–754.Link, Google Scholar
• Xia M, Huang Y, Duan W, Whinston AB (2011) To continue sharing or not to continue sharing?An empirical analysis of user decision in peer-to-peer sharing networks. Inform. Systems Res. 23(1):1–13.Google Scholar
• Yelp (2011) Yelp and the ‘1/9/90 rule.’ Accessed July 1, 2020, https://www.yelpblog.com/2011/06/yelp-and-the-1990-rule.Google Scholar
• Yin D, Bond S, Zhang H (2014) Anxious or angry? Effects of discrete emotions on the perceived helpfulness of online reviews. MIS Quart. 38(2):539–560.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zeng X, Wei L (2013) Social ties and user content generation: Evidence from Flickr. Inform. Systems Res. 24(1):71–87.Link, Google Scholar
• Zhang J, Liu Y, Chen Y (2015) Social learning in networks of friends versus strangers. Marketing Sci. 34(4):573–589.Link, Google Scholar