ArticleScientific reports2023
Social influence makes outlier opinions in online reviews offer more helpful information.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Identifying helpful information from large-scale online reviews has become a core issue in studies on harnessing wisdom-of-crowds. We investigated whether online reviews expressing dissenting opinions (i.e., outlier reviews) can provide helpful information. Using statistical and simulation methods with a large-scale dataset, we found that, compared with other online reviews, outlier reviews were deemed more helpful because they provided more sufficient, neutral, and concise information. To interpret these results, we considered that in collective behaviours, a prevalent social psychological process-conformity (i.e., changing one's behaviour in response to pressure from others)-pressured reviewers expressing dissenting opinions. This motivated them to provide more convincing evidence (i.e., sufficient, neutral, and concise information). This study offers a simple yet effective approach for eliciting helpful information from many online reviews and deepens the understanding of the mechanism underlying collective online behaviour. Specifically, conformity was considered to cause biases in the collective behaviour of humans; however, this study revealed that conformity can elicit valuable outcomes in collective behaviour.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.