Menus Subscribe Search

Follow us


Quick Studies

books

Can Book Awards Poison Reader Reviews?

• February 19, 2014 • 12:30 PM

(Photo: Nick Sherman/Flickr)

Top accolades may actually produce more negative online ratings.

You’re in a bookstore deciding which of two books to buy. Book number one has a shiny gold sticker that declares it a National Book Award winner—one of America’s top literary awards. Book number two hasn’t won anything at all. All other things being equal, you choose the award winner, right?

According to a new study published in Administrative Science Quarterly, you might not like it very much.

Two business researchers, Balázs Kovács and Amanda J. Sharkey, at the Universities of Lugano and Chicago, respectively, analyzed thousands of reader reviews on Goodreads of 64 English-language books that either won or were short-listed for top book awards—including the National Book Award, the Man Booker Prize, and the PEN/Faulkner Award—between 2007 and 2011. To their surprise, while sales of the books that won awards skyrocketed following recognition, the online ratings of these same books plummeted.

While a book’s popularity matters little to those who already want to read it, “status matters a great deal … in attracting and influencing those who would not have been interested in a product or individual on its merits alone.”

These results fly in the face of conventional sociological wisdom, which generally assumes that heightened status leads to more favorable perceptions, the researchers say. If award panels decide something is great, shouldn’t it be more likely we think it’s great, too?

There are two reasons we don’t, Kovács and Sharkey suggest. First, some people are simply more critical of popular things. A snob may have liked Sherman Alexie’s War Dances had they picked it up just after it was published in 2009, but they could have been tempted to look more closely at its faults once it won the PEN/Faulkner fiction award the following year. Secondly, as a book is read by more and more readers, it is subjected to an increasingly diverse range of literary tastes. Though this sort of exposure may sound like an author’s dream, it actually may hurt the book’s long-term reputation.

While a book’s popularity matters little to those who already want to read it, “status matters a great deal … in attracting and influencing those who would not have been interested in a product or individual on its merits alone,” write Kovács and Sharkey. “When audience members evaluating an object are attracted to it because of its status rather than its substantive features, mismatches between the focal object and the taste of the audience members are more likely to occur.” Someone who reads a book only because it has a shiny award sticker on it, in other words, is a lot less likely to enjoy it—and a lot more likely to rate it negatively online—than someone who reads a book because of some inherent interest.

According to the study’s data, a book not only gets more negative ratings after winning an award, but the number of ratings also begins to decline quicker than non-award winners’ ratings after three and a half years. As the researchers suggest, authors face the double challenge of attracting not only a large audience but also an “appropriate audience” to secure their place in the literary pantheon.

Paul Bisceglio
Fellow Paul Bisceglio was previously an editorial intern at Smithsonian magazine and a staff reporter at Manhattan Media. He is a graduate of Haverford College and completed a Fulbright scholarship at the University of Warwick in Coventry, United Kingdom. Follow him on Twitter @PaulBisceglio.

More From Paul Bisceglio

Tags: , , , , ,

If you would like to comment on this post, or anything else on Pacific Standard, visit our Facebook or Google+ page, or send us a message on Twitter. You can also follow our regular updates and other stories on both LinkedIn and Tumblr.

A weekly roundup of the best of Pacific Standard and PSmag.com, delivered straight to your inbox.

Follow us


Subscribe Now

Quick Studies

Hunger and Low Blood Sugar Can Spur Domestic Quarrels

In an experiment, scientists found a correlation between low blood glucose and higher levels of spousal frustration.

Your Brain Starts Faltering After You Reach Age … 24

Sorry to break it to you, TSwift. At least in terms of cognitive functioning while playing StarCraft 2, you're finished.

Cavemen Were Awesome Parents

Toy hand axes, rock bashing, and special burials indicate that Neanderthals were cooler parents than previously thought, according to a new theory.

Bringing a Therapy Dog Into a Children’s Hospital Might Be a Terrible Idea

Despite the popularity of animal therapy in American pediatric hospitals, a new research review reveals that there's little support for its health benefits.

You Feel Closer to Your Destination Even When You’re Not

Simply moving toward or away from something alters the way you think about it, according to a new study.

The Big One

One state—Pennsylvania—logs 52 percent of all sales, shipments, and receipts for the chocolate manufacturing industry. March/April 2014