Analysis shows fake reviews influence consumer behaviour in e-commerce, indicating the need for improved detection systems and transparency.
Aim/Purpose: To examine how fake reviews function as dark patterns and affect consumer behaviour within the Stimulus-Organism-Response (SOR) framework grounded in nudge theory. Background: On e-commerce platforms, fake reviews function as dark patterns, serving as a manipulative digital nudge that exploits cognitive biases in accordance with Nudge Theory Methodology: A systematic search was conducted in the Scopus database using keywords combining nudging, dark patterns, and fake reviews. The search yielded 27 relevant peer-reviewed articles for detailed analysis. This study employed a conceptual approach, utilizing the SOR framework, which is anchored in nudge theory, to understand how fake reviews act as stimuli that trigger internal consumer responses, which in turn drive behavioural outcomes. Contribution: Through a comprehensive analysis of 27 peer-reviewed articles, this study advances the research on fake reviews by framing them as dark patterns based on nudge theory within the SOR framework. Findings: The study reveals that fake reviews exploit cognitive biases and emotional responses, shaping consumer purchase intentions and behaviour in online contexts. Recommendations for Practitioners: Platforms should treat fake reviews as manipulative nudges, strengthen detection systems, and design transparent, awareness-driven interfaces. Recommendation for Researchers: To empirically study the proposed questions and propositions, and to examine psychological mechanisms and interventions to counter fake review influence on consumers. Impact on Society: Considering fake reviews as intentional nudges helps eradicate unethical digital practices and strengthen consumer trust in e-commerce. Future Research: The study proposes 10 research questions and 9 propositions, urging interdisciplinary inquiry across psychology, marketing, and information systems.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
A 2025 study studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: