IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jcsosc/v5y2022i1d10.1007_s42001-022-00160-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Moderators of reputation effects in peer-to-peer online markets: a meta-analytic model selection approach

Author

Listed:
  • Ruohuang Jiao

    (Utrecht University)

  • Wojtek Przepiorka

    (Utrecht University)

  • Vincent Buskens

    (Utrecht University)

Abstract

The effect of seller reputation on seller success in peer-to-peer online markets has been investigated in dozens of studies by means of the analysis of digital trace data. A recent meta-analysis synthesizing evidence from over a hundred studies corroborates that sellers with a better reputation sell more products at higher prices. However, the meta-analysis also shows that these reputation effects exhibit excess variation that cannot be attributed to sampling error. Moreover, there is still little consensus on how the size of a reputation effect should be interpreted and what might cause its variation. Here we use a meta-analytic model selection approach and multi-model inference on two subsets of 406 coefficient estimates to identify potential moderators of reputation effects. We identify contextual, product-related, and method-related moderators. Our results show that, among others, geographical region, product condition, sample size, and type of regression model have a bearing on the size of the reputation effect. The moderating effect of the geographical region suggests that reputation effects are substantially larger in the Chinese context than in the European or US contexts. The moderating effect of product condition—estimates based on new products are larger than estimates based on used products—is unexpected and worthwhile investigating further. The moderating effects of sample size and model type could be related to study quality. We do not find evidence for publication bias as a potential explanation for the effects of method-related moderators.

Suggested Citation

  • Ruohuang Jiao & Wojtek Przepiorka & Vincent Buskens, 2022. "Moderators of reputation effects in peer-to-peer online markets: a meta-analytic model selection approach," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 1041-1067, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:jcsosc:v:5:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1007_s42001-022-00160-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s42001-022-00160-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s42001-022-00160-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s42001-022-00160-0?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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Niclas Berggren & Henrik Jordahl, 2006. "Free to Trust: Economic Freedom and Social Capital," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(2), pages 141-169, May.
    2. Jennifer L. Doleac & Luke C.D. Stein, 2013. "The Visible Hand: Race and Online Market Outcomes," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 123(11), pages 469-492, November.
    3. H. Christoph Steinhardt, 2012. "How is High Trust in China Possible? Comparing the Origins of Generalized Trust in Three Chinese Societies," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 60(2), pages 434-454, June.
    4. Ljunge, Martin, 2014. "Social capital and political institutions: Evidence that democracy fosters trust," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 122(1), pages 44-49.
    5. Viechtbauer, Wolfgang, 2010. "Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor Package," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 36(i03).
    6. Armin Falk & Anke Becker & Thomas Dohmen & Benjamin Enke & David B. Huffman & Uwe Sunde, 2017. "Global Evidence on Economic Preferences," NBER Working Papers 23943, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Gary Bolton & Ben Greiner & Axel Ockenfels, 2013. "Engineering Trust: Reciprocity in the Production of Reputation Information," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(2), pages 265-285, January.
    8. Chris Nosko & Steven Tadelis, 2015. "The Limits of Reputation in Platform Markets: An Empirical Analysis and Field Experiment," NBER Working Papers 20830, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Armin Falk & Anke Becker & Thomas Dohmen & Benjamin Enke & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde, 2018. "Global Evidence on Economic Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 133(4), pages 1645-1692.
    10. Przepiorka, Wojtek, 2013. "Buyers pay for and sellers invest in a good reputation: More evidence from eBay," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 31-42.
    11. Soo Tan & Siok Tambyah, 2011. "Generalized Trust and Trust in Institutions in Confucian Asia," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 103(3), pages 357-377, September.
    12. David Moher & Alessandro Liberati & Jennifer Tetzlaff & Douglas G Altman & The PRISMA Group, 2009. "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-6, July.
    13. Carl Shapiro, 1983. "Premiums for High Quality Products as Returns to Reputations," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 98(4), pages 659-679.
    14. Chrysanthos Dellarocas & Charles A. Wood, 2008. "The Sound of Silence in Online Feedback: Estimating Trading Risks in the Presence of Reporting Bias," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(3), pages 460-476, March.
    15. Daniel W. Elfenbein & Ray Fisman & Brian Mcmanus, 2012. "Charity as a Substitute for Reputation: Evidence from an Online Marketplace," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 79(4), pages 1441-1468.
    16. Breznau, Nate & Rinke, Eike Mark & Wuttke, Alexander & Adem, Muna & Adriaans, Jule & Alvarez-Benjumea, Amalia & Andersen, Henrik Kenneth & Auer, Daniel & Azevedo, Flavio & Bahnsen, Oke, 2021. "Observing Many Researchers using the Same Data and Hypothesis Reveals a Hidden Universe of Data Analysis," MetaArXiv cd5j9, Center for Open Science.
    17. Steven Tadelis, 2016. "Reputation and Feedback Systems in Online Platform Markets," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 8(1), pages 321-340, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Schneck, Andreas & Przepiorka, Wojtek, 2023. "Meta-dominance analysis - A tool for the assessment of the quality of digital behavioural data," SocArXiv cy3wj, Center for Open Science.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Przepiorka, Wojtek, 2022. "Testing sociological theories with digital trace data from online markets," SocArXiv ed2xc, Center for Open Science.
    2. Lingfang (Ivy) Li & Steven Tadelis & Xiaolan Zhou, 2020. "Buying reputation as a signal of quality: Evidence from an online marketplace," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 51(4), pages 965-988, December.
    3. Gesche, Tobias, 2018. "Reference Price Shifts and Customer Antagonism: Evidence from Reviews for Online Auctions," VfS Annual Conference 2018 (Freiburg, Breisgau): Digital Economy 181650, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    4. Keser, Claudia & Späth, Maximilian, 2021. "The value of bad ratings: An experiment on the impact of distortions in reputation systems," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    5. Andreas J. Steur & Mischa Seiter, 2021. "Properties of feedback mechanisms on digital platforms: an exploratory study," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 91(4), pages 479-526, May.
    6. Gary E. Bolton & David J. Kusterer & Johannes Mans, 2019. "Inflated Reputations: Uncertainty, Leniency, and Moral Wiggle Room in Trader Feedback Systems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(11), pages 5371-5391, November.
    7. Keser, Claudia & Späth, Maximilian, 2020. "The value of bad ratings: An experiment on the impact of distortions in reputation systems," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 389, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    8. Yan Chen & Peter Cramton & John A. List & Axel Ockenfels, 2021. "Market Design, Human Behavior, and Management," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(9), pages 5317-5348, September.
    9. Emma von Essen & Jonas Karlsson, 2019. "The effect of competition on discrimination in online markets—Anonymity and selection," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-18, August.
    10. Daniel W. Elfenbein & Raymond Fisman & Brian McManus, 2019. "Does Cheap Talk Affect Market Outcomes? Evidence from eBay," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 11(4), pages 305-326, October.
    11. Lingfang (Ivy) Li & Erte Xiao, 2014. "Money Talks: Rebate Mechanisms in Reputation System Design," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(8), pages 2054-2072, August.
    12. Apostolos Filippas & John J. Horton & Joseph M. Golden, 2022. "Reputation Inflation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 41(4), pages 733-745, July.
    13. Xiang Hui & Tobias J. Klein & Konrad Stahl, 2021. "When and Why Do Buyers Rate in Online Markets?," CRC TR 224 Discussion Paper Series crctr224_2021_267v1, University of Bonn and University of Mannheim, Germany.
    14. Bolton, Gary E. & Ockenfels, Axel, 2014. "Does laboratory trading mirror behavior in real world markets? Fair bargaining and competitive bidding on eBay," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 143-154.
    15. Gary E. Bolton & David J. Kusterer & Johannes Mans, 2015. "Inflated reputations: Uncertainty, leniency & moral wiggle room in trader feedback systems," Cologne Graduate School Working Paper Series 06-04, Cologne Graduate School in Management, Economics and Social Sciences, revised 29 Jul 2016.
    16. Marcello Basili & Maria Alessandra Rossi, 2018. "Platform-mediated reputation systems in the sharing economy and incentives to provide service quality: the case of ridesharing services," Department of Economics University of Siena 787, Department of Economics, University of Siena.
    17. Feine, Gregor & Groh, Elke D. & von Loessl, Victor & Wetzel, Heike, 2021. "The double dividend of social information in charitable giving: Evidence from a framed field experiment," VfS Annual Conference 2021 (Virtual Conference): Climate Economics 242437, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    18. Callais, Justin & Harris, Colin & Borchard, Ben, 2022. "The moral costs of markets: Testing the deterioration hypothesis," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 204(C), pages 200-220.
    19. Paul Belleflamme & Martin Peitz, 2018. "Inside the Engine Room of Digital Platforms: Reviews, Ratings, and Recommendations," Working Papers halshs-01714549, HAL.
    20. Farajallah, Mehdi & Hammond, Robert G. & Pénard, Thierry, 2019. "What drives pricing behavior in Peer-to-Peer markets? Evidence from the carsharing platform BlaBlaCar," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 15-31.

    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:spr:jcsosc:v:5:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1007_s42001-022-00160-0. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.springer.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.