{"id":72226,"date":"2017-06-16T16:28:58","date_gmt":"2017-06-16T14:28:58","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.erasmusmagazine.nl\/?p=72226\/"},"modified":"2025-12-19T11:22:48","modified_gmt":"2025-12-19T10:22:48","slug":"geef-hier-aan-wat-u-van-dit-artikel-vond-afbeeldingen-nog-toevoegen-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.erasmusmagazine.nl\/en\/2017\/06\/16\/geef-hier-aan-wat-u-van-dit-artikel-vond-afbeeldingen-nog-toevoegen-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Please indicate your opinion of this article here*"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/figure>

The idea\u2019s fantastic. In the old days, we were dependent on a lone, cranky film critic to find out whether the new Stars Wars<\/em> was worth seeing. And we had to go to our parents\u2019 and wade through a tattered Which? to discover which vacuum cleaner was easy to use.<\/p>\n

But the ordinary consumer no longer needs the opinions of professional reviewers. We\u2019ve cut out the middle man. You can form your own opinion \u2013 together with a few billion other customers, citizens and users who share their views online. Except: can we handle this? How smart are the masses really? And are we as liberated as we make out to be? To find out, we\u2019ve gone old school and consul-ted six experts, here at EUR.<\/p>\n

1. A forest full of unreliable trees<\/h3>

Do online reviews actually offer better evaluations? At any rate, they\u2019re more extreme. Research into Airbnb reviews shows that 90 percent of the users award a score between 4.5 and the maximum of 5 stars in their reviews. In contrast, Ting Li, who researches online reviews and consumer behaviour at Rotterdam School of Management, has identified a very strong \u2018negative bias\u2019. \u201cThis is logical enough. Imagine you buy a book online and everything goes as planned. Your conclusion is basically: \u2018Everything went as intended.\u2019 But if something goes wrong somewhere in the chain \u2013 even a small problem with the delivery \u2013 you feel like complaining.\u201d<\/p>\n

And the quality of the reviews? Marc Verboord, Associate Professor of Media & Communication, has researched the use of language in film reviews, with a focus on the difference between professional newspaper critics and amateur online reviewers. After analysing over 600 reviews on film websites IMDB<\/em> and Rotten Tomatoes<\/em>, Verboord mainly determined a difference in the adopted arguments. Generally, the amateurs follow \u2013 Verboord phrases it with some tact \u2013 a simpler line of reasoning. Smiling: \u201cThings like: \u2018I want my money back, I wasted two hours of my life on this movie.\u2019 Or: \u2018I don\u2019t know what those reviewers are on about, my eight-year-old daughter loved it.\u2019\u201d<\/div>\n
\"\"<\/figure><\/div>
In principle, it\u2019s great that everyone can offer their opinion and culture is broadly discussed, says Verboord. But the thing is: some websites have so many reviews online that you can\u2019t see the forest for the trees.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n
Researcher Payal Arora observes that this puts pressure on specific types of culture. In his acclaimed book The Long Tail<\/em>, technology expert Chris Anderson still forecast that the internet would make a wide range of obscure products available to a global (i.e. mass) audience. In practice, however, the main category to benefit from this development consists of blockbusters. Arora: \u201cOnline reviews are all about averages. Numbers, in other words. That isn\u2019t the same as quality.\u201d Verboord concludes: \u201cPeople are increasingly concentrating on the same entertainment products.\u201d<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
Challenging novels, French films, opera, classical music: high-brow culture has come under new pressure as a result.\u00a0Nevertheless, Arora expects to witness a renewed appreciation of experts and their \u2013 sometimes less audience-friendly \u2013 insights. \u201cWe are nearing the end of the anti-intellectual trend \u2013 thanks in part to a growing aversion to fake reviews. In China you can find halls full of people who write positive or negative reviews to order. People are on to this. That\u2019s why more people than ever are reading The Economist<\/em>. We want to know where opinions come from.\u201d<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

2. Money undermines trust<\/h3>
Why do we actually trust people whom we\u2019ve never met before? It\u2019s our herd mentality, says consumer researcher Ting Li. \u201cPeople are influenced by other people. It has always been that way.\u201d Payal Arora doesn\u2019t object per se. \u201cI strongly believe in the wisdom of the crowd. When a film scores an 8.6 on IMDB, I\u2019ll go see it.\u201d<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Philosopher Esther Keymolen wanted to find out more about this phenomenon. She obtained her doctorate last year with research into trust in the digital domain. Keymolen devoted a whole chapter of her thesis to the sharing economy. \u201cCompanies like Airbnb play into a utopian dream that everyone is familiar with: an ideal world, in which we no longer need companies and chains and all transactions are direct and small-scale. In the old days you knew who to trust from common friends, the vicar or the baker. This role has been taken over by ratings.\u201d<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n\n\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t
\n\t\t\u2018They question how honest the review actually is, and as such doubt the quality of the product itself\u2019\n\t<\/blockquote>\n\n\t<\/figure>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t<\/div>\n

The question remains who is behind these ratings. Around 80% of consumers present-ly place the same faith in online reviews as they do in recommendations made by family and friends. But this is about to change, says Christilene du Plessis, whose doctoral research focuses on the consequences of incentivisation. In this process, reviewers are given a slight \u2018shove in the right direction\u2019. \u201cWe can see more and more companies lu-ring consumers with a gift or a very modest financial reward \u2013 sometimes only a few cents \u2013 to leave a review. Around 2012, 5 percent of the reviews were incentivised. By now this is over 50 percent. And we see consumers developing trust issues when they know writers are being paid. They question how honest the review actually is, and as such doubt the quality of the product itself.\u201d<\/p>\n

3. Old ideas parading as new<\/h3>
\u201cWe are currently at the stage where we need to lose a certain naivet\u00e9,\u201d says Keymolen. \u201cUber and Airbnb aren\u2019t value-free plat-forms that help us enter into personal relationships and build up reputation systems. They\u2019re cut-throat businesses. There\u2019s considerable friction between the community and the company.\u201d<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Keymolen is referring to the fact that it is in the interest of the community to offer honest feedback \u2013 which includes negative comments. While the company only wants to see happy customers, not moaning and griping. So she has her doubts about our tendency to almost exclusively post positive reviews on Airbnb. \u201cWe have two options: either everyone\u2019s ecstatic all the time, or something\u2019s \u2018not quite right\u2019. It\u2019s a kind of social pressure. People don\u2019t want to kill the positive buzz. So this spiel of \u2018look at how nice we are, sharing,\u2019 has become more or less mandatory. You have to support this reputation building scheme.\u201d In addition, an online review ideally serves as a means by which the consumer can demand a better product. Keymolen: \u201cBut on platforms like Airbnb and Uber, we only ever rate the other person \u2013 never the company itself.\u201d<\/div>\n
\"\"<\/figure><\/div>

And the increased freedom of choice created by the internet has also proven a contradiction in terms, says Arora. \u201cGo figure: there are a huge number of apps, but the majority of people only use six or ten on a daily basis. And they\u2019re the well-known hyper-monopolies: Google, Facebook, Instagram and Twitter.\u201d And according to Keymolen, these monopolies are a lot more forceful than you\u2019d expect: \u201cForget about them as a facilitating third party: you are very clearly enticed to make specific choices. In that sense, this is a kind of fresh spin on an old-fashioned system. But now it isn\u2019t the Hilton, but Airbnb. It isn\u2019t a community, it\u2019s a company.\u201d<\/p>\n

So, old ideas parading as new. We\u2019re not so much liberated as hoodwinked by capitalism\u2026 again. So haven\u2019t we made any progress whatsoever? Keymolen: \u201cWith new trends of this kind, people tend to either become wildly enthusiastic or completely dismissive. But above all, you need to avoid being na\u00efve. People will never be able \u2013 or indeed want \u2013 to live without technology. Which is fine, because we can benefit a great deal from it. But with platforms like this, you need to adopt a critical attitude. It\u2019s not just about the interface, but it\u2019s also about a new balance of power.\u201d<\/p>\n\t

\n\t\t

Psychiatrist: Our stress system is working overtime<\/strong><\/p>\n

All this judging \u2013 and, above all, being judged \u2013 can we actually handle this, psychologically speaking? The answer is simple: no. At least, some of the people can\u2019t, according to Witte Hoogendijk, Professor of Psychiatry at Erasmus MC. This spring Hoogendijk published a book he had written together with journalist Wilma de Rek: From Big Bang to Burn-Out<\/em>. Its main conclusion: our stress response system is obsolete in evolutionary terms, and entirely unsuited for handling the huge amount of stimuli encountered in today\u2019s world. And \u2018fight or flee\u2019 is not an option.<\/p>\n

According to Hogendijk, we have forgotten that some individuals can stand stressors better than others. \u201cIn the old days, we used to take this into account. One of us would go hunting, while the other would gather berries or take care of the children. But nowadays everyone is subjected to the same avalanche of stimuli. One example is the huge quantity of forum comments \u2013 with online bullying as an extreme example.\u201d<\/p>\n

This can lead to stress, burn-outs and sometimes even depression. Tests with lab animals shows that social defeat, in which the subject moves down a rung on the social ladder, immediately reduces its level of serotonin, a neurotransmitter that regulates our mood. On top of this, our brains are evolutionary adapted to a maximum group size of 150 people, rather than a thousand Facebook friends and counting.<\/p>\n

And while Hoogendijk agrees that human beings have a strong need for feedback, in his view our current online review culture is a \u2018semi-finished product\u2019: \u201cPeople share numerous compliments and points of criticism, but these comments are often very a-specific. While we know from literature that the more specific the comment, the more the recipient benefits from it.\u201d So we need to master the art of giving and receiving online reviews, says Hoogendijk. Until then: why not leave the \u2018Like\u2019 button alone for a while, and express your opinions the old-fashioned way?<\/p>\n\n\t<\/div>\n\n\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t

De redactie<\/h2>\n\t\t\n\t\t
\n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t