The Hidden Cost of a Five-Word Review

By L. Jean Harrison-Walker and James A. Mead

In the booming peer-to-peer service economy, reputation is everything. Platforms like Airbnb, Uber, and Upwork have built empires on a foundation of trust, and that trust is manufactured through a simple, yet powerful tool: the two-sided review. After a transaction—a stay, a ride, a completed project—both parties are prompted to rate each other, creating a public ledger of reliability and quality. This system is designed to be a virtuous cycle, reducing risk and helping users make better decisions.

But what happens when this cycle is broken? Not by a negative review, but by a positive one that is dismissive, brief, or clearly low-effort. Imagine you are an Airbnb host. You’ve spent hours preparing your property, communicating with your guest, and ensuring they had a fantastic stay. After they leave, you write a detailed, thoughtful review highlighting what a wonderful guest they were. You post it, and a few days later, you see their review of you: “Great stay. Thanks.”

While positive on the surface, this kind of interaction creates an imbalance—what we term an unequal review effort exchange. Our research reveals that when one party invests significant effort into a review and receives a minimal one in return, it triggers a powerful psychological reaction. This feeling of inequity leads to what psychologists call cognitive dissonance—a state of mental discomfort. And to resolve that discomfort, customers take actions that have direct, negative consequences for both the other user and the platform itself.

They become less likely to do business with you again. They are more likely to disengage from the platform entirely, choosing a traditional hotel for their next trip. And they may even start putting less effort into their own future reviews, degrading the very system that platforms rely on. This isn’t just about hurt feelings; it’s a hidden drag on customer retention, engagement, and the overall health of the marketplace. The five-word review is not a harmless shortcut; it’s a quiet threat that service platform managers and individual providers can no longer afford to overlook.

The Second, Hidden Transaction

Every interaction on a home-sharing platform involves two exchanges. The first is economic: money for lodging. This is the primary transaction that everyone focuses on. However, a second, also important social exchange occurs after the stay is over: the exchange of reviews.

Unlike one-sided platforms like Yelp or TripAdvisor, the symmetrical review systems used by Airbnb create a unique dynamic. Each party holds power over the other’s future success. A guest’s glowing review helps a host attract more bookings. A host’s positive feedback helps a guest secure desirable rentals in the future, especially if they are new to the platform.

This social exchange is governed by what sociologist Alvin Gouldner identified in 1960 as the “norm of reciprocity”—a fundamental social rule that says we should return favors and acts of kindness. When a host or guest writes an effortful, detailed review, they are not just providing feedback; they are offering a valuable social resource. The reasonable expectation, as Gouldner explained, is that the other party will respond in kind, with both partners perceiving the exchange as equally valuable.

The problem is that on platforms like Airbnb, reviews are blind. You cannot see what the other person wrote until you have submitted your own review. You are, in effect, trading something of known value (your thoughtful review) for the unknown contents of a mystery box. When you open that box and find a barebones, low-effort response, the norm of reciprocity is violated. This violation is the root cause of the problem. It creates a perceived inequity that the brain scrambles to resolve.

The Psychology Of Feeling Short-Changed

When a user experiences this unequal review effort, it sets off a predictable psychological chain reaction.

Perceived Inequity: The first feeling is one of unfairness. The user’s mental calculus is simple: “I put in more effort than I got back.” This isn’t about the star rating; both reviews can be five stars. It’s about the imbalance in the social exchange. This feeling of being on the short end of the deal was first formally described in 1963 by psychologist J. Stacy Adams in his equity theory, which posits that people are motivated to maintain fair relationships. An unequal review exchange throws this relationship out of balance.
Cognitive Dissonance: This perceived inequity creates mental stress, or cognitive dissonance. First identified by social psychologist Leon Festinger in 1957, this is the discomfort we feel when our beliefs clash with reality. In this case, the belief is, “My effort should be met with equal effort.” The reality is, “It wasn’t.” This inconsistency is uncomfortable, and as Festinger’s work established, we are highly motivated to eliminate it. Because the review is often unchangeable, the user can’t fix the original problem. Instead, as researchers Elaine Walster Hatfield, Ellen Berscheid, and G. William Walster later noted, they seek to restore their psychological balance by taking some form of action.

The Business Impact: A Ripple Of Negative Outcomes

The drive to reduce cognitive dissonance is not a passive process. Our studies, involving both university students and a general market panel, showed that users who received a low-effort review in response to their own high-effort one took their frustrations out in several damaging ways.

• They Won’t Come Back: The most direct impact is on repeat business. Guests who experienced an unequal exchange were significantly less likely to stay with the same host again. This aligns with research from Young K. Kim, which found that cognitive dissonance negatively affects repatronage intentions, even when customers are otherwise satisfied. The sour taste of the review exchange was enough to sever the relationship.
• They Blame the Platform and Spread the Word: This discomfort often manifests as complaining behavior, a link established by researchers Thomas Salzberger and Monika Koller. Our moderated mediation analysis showed a clear path from cognitive dissonance to negative word-of-mouth (NWOM) about the platform. They feel the platform’s system facilitated the unfair exchange. The discomfort created by one user’s laziness is externalized as a flaw in the platform’s design, leading to brand damage.
• They Leave the Ecosystem: Perhaps most alarming for platform managers, users who felt slighted were significantly more likely to say they would choose a hotel over an Airbnb for their next trip. They chose to disengage from the sharing economy altogether, at least temporarily. This is customer churn driven not by a bad service experience, but by a flawed social interaction after the service was complete.
• They Lower Their Own Standards: The inequity also teaches users a new, more cynical behavior. Our second study found that the experience led them to intend to spend less time and effort on their own reviews in the future. In essence, the platform’s “bad citizen” is teaching other users to behave the same way. This can lead to a downward spiral in the quality and usefulness of reviews across the entire platform, eroding the very trust mechanism that makes the business model work.

Not All Users React The Same

A fascinating aspect of our research was the role of a personality trait known as trait reciprocity. Based on a framework developed by researchers in 2003, this concept describes people who have a stronger innate belief that favors should be returned and that exchanges should be equitable. These are individuals who live by the golden rule. Our findings show that these individuals are disproportionately affected by an unequal review effort exchange. When they received a minimal review, their sense of inequity was significantly higher than that of the average user. Consequently, all the negative outcomes—from avoiding the host to abandoning the platform—were more pronounced for this group.

From a business perspective, this is a dangerous situation. Your most conscientious and fair-minded users, the very people who are likely to be the best hosts and guests, are the ones most likely to be alienated by the low-effort behavior of others. Failing to manage the review exchange process means you risk losing your best customers.

Interestingly, we did find a difference between hosts and guests. While hosts experienced the same feelings of inequity and cognitive dissonance when they received a low-effort review from a guest, their intention to host that same guest again remained high. We surmise this is due to a simple economic motivation: a host’s primary goal is to keep their property booked. They are willing to swallow the psychological discomfort for the sake of revenue. Guests, however, have no such economic incentive. With countless other options available, they are free to act on their negative feelings and take their business elsewhere.

An Action Plan For Platforms And Providers

The hidden costs of unequal reviews are significant, but they are not unavoidable. Both platform managers and individual service providers can take concrete steps to foster a more equitable and robust review culture. Our research included asking participants for their own solutions, which provided a clear roadmap for improvement.

For Platform Managers

The core task is to redesign the review process to guide users toward more equitable contributions.

1) Structure the Feedback: The most common suggestion was to move away from a single open-ended text box. Implement a structured review process that includes:

• Minimum (and Maximum) Word Counts: This sets a clear expectation of effort.
• Standardized Questions and Checklists: Prompt users with specific questions about key as-pects of the experience (e.g., for hosts: “Was the guest communicative?” “Did they leave the space tidy?”). This ensures a baseline of detailed information and makes it easier for users to provide a comprehensive review.
• Rating Scales for Specific Attributes: Go beyond a single star rating to include ratings for cleanliness, communication, accuracy, etc.

2) Educate Users on the “Why:” Don’t just ask for a review; explain its value. Use tooltips, emails, and in-app messages to remind both parties how detailed reviews help them and the community. Frame it as a crucial contribution to the ecosystem’s health. For example: “Your detailed feedback helps Patricia secure future bookings and helps other guests make informed decisions.”

3) Provide Post-Publication Tools: Cognitive dissonance arises partly because the review feels final and irrevocable. Giving users more control can alleviate this.

• Allow Review Edits/Addendums: Give users a window of time (e.g., 48 hours) to add more detail to their review after seeing what the other party wrote.
• Facilitate Private Communication: A user who feels slighted may want to simply ask, “Is there anything I could have done better?” Providing a simple, private messaging channel post-review could resolve feelings of inequity before they lead to negative action.
• Implement “Review Value” Metrics: Allow users to upvote or downvote reviews for their helpfulness, similar to systems on Amazon or Reddit. This adds another layer of social accountability and encourages higher-quality feedback.

For Hosts and Service Providers

Individual providers are not helpless; they can proactively manage the exchange.

1) Set Expectations

• Early and Gently: Don’t wait until after the stay. In your welcome letter, guest book, or a checkout message, you can set the stage for a thoughtful review exchange. For example: “We truly value detailed feedback in our reviews, as it helps us improve and helps future guests understand the experience. We always make a point to do the same for our guests.”

2) Model the Behavior You Want to See: Consistently write the kind of detailed, helpful reviews you hope to receive. Over time, this builds a reputation not just as a great host, but as a fair and engaged member of the community.

3) Use Proactive Communication: If a guest’s stay was fantastic, mentioning it in a departure message can prime them for a more engaged review. “It was a pleasure hosting you, Patricia! We particularly appreciated how communicative you were. We’re looking forward to leaving you a great review and hope you had a 5-star experience as well.”

The sharing economy was built on the idea of community and mutual benefit. Yet, by overlooking the subtle social dynamics of the review process, platforms and providers risk fostering a culture of low-effort exchanges that slowly poisons the well of trust. A review is more than just a rating; it’s the final touchpoint in the customer experience and a vital social contract. Treating it with the importance it deserves is no longer just good manners—it’s a business imperative.

---

About The Author

James A. Mead is Chair of the Department of Commerce in the Lewis Bear Jr. College of Business and a Professor at the University of West Florida. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Kentucky. His research centers on consumer emotion and memory. He teaches marketing, and his work appears in leading business and marketing journals. His industry experience includes serving as a senior market research analyst, specializing in product development, advertising, branding, and customer experience.

This work is adapted from the journal article “The overlooked and hidden consequences of inequitable reviews in home-sharing services” by L. Jean Harrison-Walker and James A. Mead, published in the Journal of Services Marketing (2025). Google Gemini was used as an assistive tool in the creation of this adaptation.