Online review platforms play a critical role in shaping consumer decisions but are vulnerable to review bombing, where coordinated users distort product ratings for non-quality-related reasons. To mitigate this, Metacritic introduced a 36-hour waiting period before users could post reviews for newly released products. This paper investigates the impact of this anti-review-bombing intervention on users’ behavioral responses. Using a panel dataset of over 3,000 products released within nine months before and after the policy intervention, we conduct an empirical analysis and find that the review volume significantly increases after the policy is implemented. More importantly, the average user ratings significantly decreases, suggesting a shift toward more negative sentiment. Our robustness tests, including propensity score matching (PSM) and difference-in-differences (DID), generate qualitatively similar results. These findings highlight the trade-offs between timely participation and user sentiment in platform governance. The study provides empirical evidence on the complex dynamics of anti-review-bombing measures, offering insights for platform designers and policymakers concerned with digital trust and user engagement.
목차
ABSTRACT Ⅰ. Introduction Ⅱ. Literature Review 2.1. Online Reviews, Review Manipulation, and Review Bombing 2.2. Platform Governance and Time-Based Friction Ⅲ. Hypotheses Development Ⅳ. Empirical Context and Observational Data Ⅴ. Empirical Strategies and Results 5.1. Empirical Specification 5.2. Matching 5.3. Robustness Test: Alternative Matching 5.4. Robustness Test: Alternative Identification Strategy 5.5. Other Robustness Tests Ⅵ. Discussions and Conclusion 6.1. Summary of Findings 6.2. Theoretical Implications 6.3. Practical Implications 6.4. Limitations and Future Research 6.5. Conclusion Acknowledgements