IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cpr/ceprdp/16147.html

Bias in expert product reviews

Author

Listed:
  • van Ours, Jan C.
  • Vollaard, Ben

Abstract

Hard evidence on bias in expert reviews and its consequences for ratings is rare. This holds particularly true for conflicts of interest that are thought to be common in non-blind product reviews but are not readily observable: ad hoc relationships between reviewers and producers. We present a textbook case of a long-running expert product review in the food service industry for which we happen to know the reviewer's conflict of interest: being affiliated to one particular producer. As is typical, only insiders were aware of the possible source of bias in the review. The review resembles other non-blind tests of product quality. We obtained detailed data to map the consequences of the conflict of interest. We find evidence of a sizable bias in the reviewers' ratings. Our findings suggest that reviewers' ad hoc relationships with producers, often dismissed as `coming with the job', can be very harmful.

Suggested Citation

  • van Ours, Jan C. & Vollaard, Ben, 2021. "Bias in expert product reviews," CEPR Discussion Papers 16147, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    • Handle: RePEc:cpr:ceprdp:16147
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://cepr.org/publications/DP16147
    Download Restriction: CEPR Discussion Papers are free to download for our researchers, subscribers and members. If you fall into one of these categories but have trouble downloading our papers, please contact us at subscribers@cepr.org
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or

    for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Asmat, Roberto & Borowiecki, Karol J. & Law, Marc T., 2023. "Do experts and laypersons differ? Some evidence from international classical music competitions," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 214(C), pages 270-290.
    3. Fengnan Gao & Richard D. Gill, 2023. "Pitfalls of amateur regression: The Dutch New Herring controversies," Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, Danish Society for Theoretical Statistics;Finnish Statistical Society;Norwegian Statistical Association;Swedish Statistical Association, vol. 50(4), pages 1901-1918, December.
    4. Jan C. Van Ours & Ben Vollaard, 2024. "Commentary on “Pitfalls of amateur regression: The Dutch New Herring controversies”," Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, Danish Society for Theoretical Statistics;Finnish Statistical Society;Norwegian Statistical Association;Swedish Statistical Association, vol. 51(3), pages 1388-1389, September.
    5. Gábor Békés & Endre Borza & Márton Fleck, 2024. "Favoritism under multiple sources of social pressure," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 62(4), pages 1748-1769, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:cpr:ceprdp:16147. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cepr.org .

    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.