Abstract
People increasingly use the internet as a source of social information. The pay-offs associated with using such information depend on its quality in terms of content and bias. A key question is therefore what information is contained in socially acquired information and whether it is biased. For example, social information may be biased due to conformism if people ‘producing’ (i.e. posting) information adjust it based on existing social information. We addressed these questions by focussing on ratings of beers posted by Finns on the internet, which people use as a source of social information when making consumer decisions. To model the information contained in beer ratings, we analysed a repeated measures longitudinal dataset of >130 000 beer ratings collected by 490 Finns and estimated key variance components. We decomposed variation in social information (i.e. ratings) into variation attributable to characteristics of the beer (beer identity, beer style, brewery and country of brewery), characteristics of the (individual) rater, variation caused by temporal effects and residual variation. Moreover, we compared blind with non-blind rating scores to evaluate whether conformism represented a source of bias. The majority (65.1%) of the variation in beer ratings was explained by beer characteristics, 9.5% by the identity of the rater and <0.5% by temporal effects; only 25.1% of the variance remained unexplained. Blind ratings were positively correlated with non-blind ratings, suggesting that conformism did not introduce a major bias. Our findings imply that beer ratings posted on the internet may represent a relatively unbiased and informative source of social information.
Significance statement
People use social information when taking behavioural decisions. Social information content may be biased due to conformism when people produce information non-independently. It is important to know whether social information is biased since social information that is of low quality is not useful. We quantified the information content of and bias in human beer ratings posted on the internet, which many people use as a source of social information. We show that beer ratings can be considered as an informative and unbiased source of social information: beer characteristics explain the majority of variation in beer rating scores, and blind and non-blind ratings were positively associated, implying that people do not produce biased ratings when scoring beers.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Äyräväinen S (2005) Suomalaisen oma olutopas. Moreeni Ltd., Helsinki, Finland
Baayen RH, Davidson DJ, Bates DM (2008) Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. J Mem Lang 59:390–412
Bell AM, Hankison SJ, Laskowski KL (2009) The repeatability of behaviour: a meta-analysis. Anim Behav 77:771–783
Bende M, Nordin S (1997) Perceptual learning in olfaction: professional wine tasters versus controls. Physiol Behav 62:1065–1070
Birch LL (1999) Development of food preferences. Annu Rev Nutr 19:41–62
Bolker BM, Brooks ME, Clark CJ, Geange SW, Poulsen JR, Stevens MHH, White JSS (2009) Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol Evol 24:127–135
Conradt L, Roper TJ (2005) Consensus decision making in animals. Trends Ecol Evol 20:449–456
Dalenberg JR, Nanetti L, Renken RJ, de Wijk RA, ter Horst GJ (2014) Dealing with consumer differences in liking during repeated exposure to food; typical dynamics in rating behavior. PLoS ONE 9, e93350
Dall SRX, Giraldeau LA, Olsson O, McNamara JM, Stephens DW (2005) Information and its use by animals in evolutionary ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 20:187–193
Danchin É, Giraldeau L-A, Valone TJ, Wagner RH (2004) Public information: from nosy neighbors to cultural evolution. Science 305:487–491
Drewnowski A (1997) Taste preferences and food intake. Annu Rev Nutr 17:237–253
Dunlap AS, Nielsen ME, Dornhaus A, Papaj DR (2016) Foraging bumble bees weigh the reliability of personal and social information. Curr Biol 26:1–5
Dyer JRG, Ioannou CC, Morrell LJ, Croft DP, Couzin ID, Waters DA, Krause J (2008) Consensus decision making in human crowds. Anim Behav 75:461–470
Flanagin AJ, Metzger MJ (2013) Trusting expert- versus user-generated ratings online: the role of information volume, valence, and consumer characteristics. Comput Hum Behav 29:1626–1634
Galef BG, Giraldeau L-A (2001) Social influences on foraging in vertebrates: causal mechanisms and adaptive functions. Anim Behav 61:3–15
Garcia-Bailo B, Toguri C, Eny KM, El-sohemy A (2009) Genetic variation in taste and its influence on food selection. OMICS 13:69–80
Gilmour AR, Gogel BJ, Cullis BR, Thompson R (2009) ASReml user guide release 3.0., http://www.vsni.co.uk/resources/documentation/asreml-user-guide/
Giraldeau L-A, Valone TJ, Templeton JJ (2002) Potential disadvantages of using socially acquired information. Philos T Roy Soc B 357:1559–1566
Goldammer T (2008) The brewer’s handbook: the complete book to brewing beer. Apex Publishers, Clifton, Virginia, USA
Goldstein R, Almenberg J, Dreber A, Emerson JW, Herschkowitsch A, Katz J (2008) Do more expensive wines taste better? Evidence from a large sample of blind tastings. J Wine Econ 3:1–9
Gosling SD, Vazire S, Srivastava S, John OP (2004) Should we trust web-based studies? A comparative analysis of six preconceptions about Internet questionnaires. Am Psychol 59:93–104
Jackson M (1997) Michael Jackson’s beer companion: the world’s great beer styles, gastronomy, and traditions. Running Press, Philadelphia, USA
Keller KL, Staelin R (1987) Effects of quality and quantity of information on decision effectiveness. J Consum Res 14:200–213
Koops MA (2004) Reliability and the value of information. Anim Behav 67:103–111
Kronfeld-Schor N, Einat H (2012) Circadian rhythms and depression: human psychopathology and animal models. Neuropharmacology 62:101–114
Laland KN (2004) Social learning strategies. Anim Learn Behav 32:4–14
List C (2004) Democracy in animal groups: a political science perspective. Trends Ecol Evol 19:168–169
Lorenz J, Rauhut H, Schweitzer F, Helbing D (2011) How social influence can undermine the wisdom of crowd effect. P Natl Acad Sci USA 108:9020–9025
McLinn CM, Stephens DW (2006) What makes information valuable: signal reliability and environmental uncertainty. Anim Behav 71:1119–1129
Metzger MJ, Flanagin AJ (2013) Credibility and trust of information in online environments: the use of cognitive heuristics. J Pragmat 59:210–220
Meyer K (1992) Variance components due to direct and maternal effects for growth traits of Australian beef cattle. Livest Prod Sci 31:179–204
Murr AE (2011) “Wisdom of crowds”? A decentralised election forecasting model that uses citizens’ local expectations. Elect Stud 30:771–783
Nakagawa S, Schielzeth H (2010) Repeatability for Gaussian and non-Gaussian data: a practical guide for biologists. Biol Rev 85:935–956
Parr WV, White KG, Heatherbell DA (2004) Exploring the nature of wine expertise: what underlies wine experts’ olfactory recognition memory advantage? Food Qual Prefer 15:411–420
Quinlan JR (1986) Induction of decision trees. Mach Learn 1:81–106
Rastad C, Sjödén P-O, Ulfberg J (2005) High prevalence of self-reported winter depression in a Swedish county. Psychiat Clin Neuros 59:666–675
Rieucau G, Giraldeau L-A (2011) Exploring the costs and benefits of social information use: an appraisal of current experimental evidence. Philos T Roy Soc B 366:949–957
Saarijarvi S, Lauerma H, Helenius H, Saarilehto S (1999) Seasonal affective disorders among rural Finns and Lapps. Acta Psychiat Scand 99:95–101
Seppänen JT, Forsman JT, Mönkkönen M, Thomson RL (2007) Social information use is a process across time, space, and ecology, reaching heterospecifics. Ecology 88:1622–1633
Siegrist M, Cousin ME (2009) Expectations influence sensory experience in a wine tasting. Appetite 52:762–765
Sumpter DJT, Pratt SC (2009) Quorum responses and consensus decision making. Philos T Roy Soc B 364:743–753
van de Pol M, Wright J (2009) A simple method for distinguishing within- versus between-subject effects using mixed models. Anim Behav 77:753–758
Visscher PM (2006) A note on the asymptotic distribution of likelihood ratio tests to test variance components. Twin Res Hum Genet 9:490–495
Werle COC, Trendel O, Ardito G (2013) Unhealthy food is not tastier for everybody: the “healthy=tasty” French intuition. Food Qual Prefer 28:116–121
Wilson AJ, Réale D, Clements MN, Morrissey MM, Postma E, Walling CA, Kruuk LEB, Nussey DH (2010) An ecologist’ s guide to the animal model. J Anim Ecol 79:13–26
www.beeradvocate.com (accessed 7.12.2015)
www.olutopas.info (accessed 13.04.2015)
www.pastemagazine.com (accessed 7.12.2015)
www.ratebeer.com (accessed 7.12.2015)
Zainasheff J, Palmer J (2007) Brewing classic styles: 80 winning recipes anyone can brew. Brewers Publications, Boulder, Colorado, USA
Acknowledgments
PTN was supported by DFG (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, NI 1539/1-1). We thank Marika Pesonen and Anne Rutten for a stimulating dinner during which we tasted highly rated beers and conceived the idea for this study. We also thank two anonymous reviewers for the constructive comments on earlier versions of this article, Timo Kanniainen and Seppo Äyräväinen for checking beer ‘facts’ detailed in this paper and Seppo Äyräväinen for kindly providing us access to the beer rating data. We also thank Jim Vorel (from www.pastemagazine.com) and Joe Tucker (from www.ratebeer.com) for providing access for the data used in the analysis of conformism and reputation bias.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Additional information
Communicated by M. Raymond
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Niemelä, P.T., Dingemanse, N.J. Trustworthiness of online beer ratings as a source of social information. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 71, 24 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-016-2254-4
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-016-2254-4