Customer behavior and adoption · Large observational e-commerce study using rich panel data, multiple identification strategies, and alternative estimators
An Empirical Study of Free Product Sampling and Rating Bias
Zhijie Lin, Ying Zhang, Yong Tan (2019). An Empirical Study of Free Product Sampling and Rating Bias. Information Systems Research. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2018.0801
Plain-English take
Free sampling raised ratings by 1.1%; rating bias was larger at higher original prices and smaller with larger discounts and greater product popularity.
How much weight to give this
2/5 Observational or survey evidence; interpret as association
The 1–5 evidence-check score is a practical reading aid, not a formal peer review or a probability that a conclusion is true. It combines design strength (2 points), sample reporting (1), comparison/control clarity (1), and how much of the paper could be checked (1). Access affects how confidently this directory can assess a study, not the study's underlying quality. Blinding is reported separately because it is not relevant to every design.
Large observational e-commerce study using rich panel data, multiple identification strategies, and alternative estimators
Products and reviews on Taobao.com
Comparison details need confirmation in the full paper.
Only the publisher page was checked; full-text methods are not established.
Double-blind? Blinding was not established from the publisher page; this is not evidence that blinding was or was not used.
Research question
What the authors investigated
An Empirical Study of Free Product Sampling and Rating Bias?
Design
Large observational e-commerce study using rich panel data, multiple identification strategies, and alternative estimators
Sample and setting
Products and reviews on Taobao.com
Reported result
What the study found
Free sampling raised ratings by 1.1%; rating bias was larger at higher original prices and smaller with larger discounts and greater product popularity.
This is a paraphrase of the source. Check the original paper for definitions, estimates, statistical uncertainty and analysis details.
Scope and transfer
Limitations to keep in view
The evidence is observational and drawn from one Chinese e-commerce marketplace; despite identification strategies, remaining confounding and platform-specific behavior limit causal and cross-market generalization. The accessible publisher page was used for this listing; correction history was not independently checked.
Possible founder application
Use as a bounded example of an empirical study of free product sampling and rating bias; compare its context and design with your own market before applying its result.
Evidence access
Publisher article page; full-text availability varies and was not established in this review.
The publisher page reports multiple identification and estimation strategies on Taobao data and finds free product sampling increases product ratings by 1.1%, with effects moderated by price, discount, and popularity. Publisher page was directly retrieved; detailed full-text methods were not independently verified.
If only an abstract or metadata was available, the profile is limited to claims supported there. A paper's paywall does not change its evidentiary status, but it limits what we can substantiate from accessible text.