Assessing restaurant review helpfulness through big data: dual-process and social influence theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study aims to uncover how heuristic information cues (HIC) and systematic information cues (SIC) of online reviews influence review helpfulness and examine a moderating role of social influence in the process of assessing review helpfulness. In particular, this study conceptualizes a theoretical framework based on dual-process and social influence theory (SIT) and empirically tests the proposed hypotheses by analyzing a broad set of actual customer review data. Design/methodology/approach For 4,177,377 online reviews posted on Yelp.com from 2004 to 2018, this study used data mining and text analysis to extract independent variables. Zero-inflated negative binomial regression analysis was conducted to test the hypothesized model. Findings The present study demonstrates that both HIC and SIC have a significant relationship with review helpfulness. Normative social influence cue (NSIC) strengthened the relationship between HIC and review helpfulness. However, the moderating effect of NSIC was not valid in the relationship between SIC and review helpfulness. Originality/value This study contributes to the extant research on review helpfulness by providing a conceptual framework underpinned by dual-process theory and SIT. The study not only identifies determinants of review helpfulness but also reveals how social influences can impact individuals’ judgment on review helpfulness. By offering a state-of-the-art analysis with a vast amount of online reviews, this study contributes to the methodological improvement of further empirical research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.033 | 0.179 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".