The Ratings Game: Asymmetry in Classification

Noise or Quality? Cross-Nested Hierarchical Effects of Culture on Online Ratings

“…Second, prior research has theorized that existing ratings may provide a positive or a negative anchor for future ratings (Li & Hitt, 2008;Moe & Trusov, 2011;Muchnik et al, 2013;Schlosser, 2005;Waguespack & Sorenson, 2011;Zhao & Zhou, 2011). These anchors create a Matthew effect whereby the rich get richer (positive anchors) and the poor get poorer (negative anchors) (Merton, 1968).…”

“…Instead of having competing institutions that govern the ratings process as is typically the case with offline ratings (Espeland & Sauder, 2007;Fleischer, 2009;Hsu, Roberts, & Swaminathan, 2012;Waguespack & Sorenson, 2011), rating contributions in a public electronic knowledge sharing community may involve competing occupational and/or national cultures (Blanchard, 2008;Dholakia, Bagozzi, & Pearo, 2004;Stewart & Gosain, 2006). Generally, individuals are ethnocentric by nature, which means that they tend to think of their own culture (occupation or national) as the gold standard and other cultures as "good" only to the extent that they are similar to their own (Triandis, 1994(Triandis, , 2000.…”

“…Both the online and the offline ratings' literature have consistently found that existing ratings provide a positive or a negative anchor for future ratings, which leads to a Matthew effect for content contributors (Li & Hitt, 2008;Moe & Trusov, 2011;Muchnik et al, 2013;Schlosser, 2005;Waguespack & Sorenson, 2011;Zhao & Zhou, 2011). However, I propose that the power distance of the rater's national culture will moderate this effect because individuals socialized in high power distance cultures have a greater tendency to act deferentially to those in high-status positions, whereas individuals socialized in low power distance cultures generally have less respect for those in high-status positions (Erez & Gati, 2004;Hofstede & Bond, 1988;Triandis, 2000).…”

Diffusion as Classification

“…By condensing data and reducing information loads, classification is an immensely useful cognitive mechanism that simplifies and accelerates both decision-making and action (Dutton andJackson 1987, Powell andColyvas 2008). As such, it is central to the functioning of not only public administration (Bowker andStar 1999, Mohr 1994) and the nation state (Porter 1995, Starr 1992, but also commercial settings as diverse as gastronomy (Rao et al 2005), financial markets Rao 2004, Zuckerman 1999) and cinema (Waguespack andSorenson 2011, Zuckerman et al 2003). …”

Seeing Stars: Matthew Effects and Status Bias in Major League Baseball Umpiring

“…Status markers, like ranking systems in education (Espeland and Sauder 2007) or awards and prizes (Rossman et al 2010), accentuate quality differences among actors and create greater socio-economic inequality. Past research has advanced our understanding of how status hierarchies emerge and persist (Berger, Rosenholtz, and Zelditch 1980;Webster and Hysom 1998;Ridgeway and Correll 2006), on the psychological rewards of status attainment (e.g., Willer 2009;Anderson et al 2012), on the association of status with characteristics such as race and gender (Ridgeway 1991), or on status outcomes, such as the accumulation of power, price and wage differentials, and other economic and social benefits (Podolny 1993;Benjamin and Podolny 1999;Thye 2000;Correll et al 2007;Stuart, Hoang, and Hybels 1999;Bothner, Kim, and Smith 2011;Pearce 2011;Waguespack and Sorenson, 2011).…”