Consumers frequently rely on extreme online reviews—highly positive or highly negative—for clarity and detailed insights. However, conflicting extremes can generate confusion and erode trust in rating systems, highlighting the need for additional metrics that provide deeper insight into reviewer behavior. To address this, we introduce a novel and intuitive two-dimensional framework for profiling reviewer behavior through two complementary indices: the Reviewer Extremeness Index (REI), which quantifies the frequency of extreme ratings, and the Reviewer Polarity Index (RPI), which measures the directional imbalance between positive and negative extremes, along with its intensity. The framework maps each reviewer onto a two-dimensional plane whose axes are REI and RPI, identifying nine archetypal profiles of reviewers’ historical extreme behaviors. As a case study, we applied this approach to three million Amazon book reviews, demonstrating its practical value in a real-world context. This framework provides dual utility. For consumers, it offers crucial contextual information: knowing a reviewer’s archetype allows for a more nuanced interpretation of their feedback. For online retail platforms, the framework serves as a scalable tool to monitor reviewer behavior and identify systematic rating patterns that may warrant further scrutiny, such as those potentially associated with incentivized reviewing. By making reviewer tendencies transparent, our model contributes to a more reliable and trustworthy digital marketplace ecosystem.

Stracqualursi, L., Agati, P. (2026). A two-dimensional framework for profiling online reviewer behavior. PLOS ONE, 21(3), 1-19 [10.1371/journal.pone.0344988].

A two-dimensional framework for profiling online reviewer behavior

Stracqualursi, Luisa
Primo
;
Agati, Patrizia
Secondo
2026

Abstract

Consumers frequently rely on extreme online reviews—highly positive or highly negative—for clarity and detailed insights. However, conflicting extremes can generate confusion and erode trust in rating systems, highlighting the need for additional metrics that provide deeper insight into reviewer behavior. To address this, we introduce a novel and intuitive two-dimensional framework for profiling reviewer behavior through two complementary indices: the Reviewer Extremeness Index (REI), which quantifies the frequency of extreme ratings, and the Reviewer Polarity Index (RPI), which measures the directional imbalance between positive and negative extremes, along with its intensity. The framework maps each reviewer onto a two-dimensional plane whose axes are REI and RPI, identifying nine archetypal profiles of reviewers’ historical extreme behaviors. As a case study, we applied this approach to three million Amazon book reviews, demonstrating its practical value in a real-world context. This framework provides dual utility. For consumers, it offers crucial contextual information: knowing a reviewer’s archetype allows for a more nuanced interpretation of their feedback. For online retail platforms, the framework serves as a scalable tool to monitor reviewer behavior and identify systematic rating patterns that may warrant further scrutiny, such as those potentially associated with incentivized reviewing. By making reviewer tendencies transparent, our model contributes to a more reliable and trustworthy digital marketplace ecosystem.
2026
Stracqualursi, L., Agati, P. (2026). A two-dimensional framework for profiling online reviewer behavior. PLOS ONE, 21(3), 1-19 [10.1371/journal.pone.0344988].
Stracqualursi, Luisa; Agati, Patrizia
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
file pubblicao open_access 2026.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipo: Versione (PDF) editoriale / Version Of Record
Licenza: Licenza per Accesso Aperto. Creative Commons Attribuzione (CCBY)
Dimensione 1.83 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
1.83 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11585/1055874
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact