IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v198y2024ics004016252300656x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Investigating reviewers' intentions to post fake vs. authentic reviews based on behavioral linguistic features

Author

Listed:
  • Kim, Jong Min
  • Park, Keeyeon Ki-cheon
  • Mariani, Marcello
  • Wamba, Samuel Fosso

Abstract

Growing interest in peer-generated online reviews for product promotion has incentivized online review manipulation. The latter is challenging to be detected. In this study, to discern reviews that are likely authentic vs. fake, we leverage interpersonal deception theory (IDT) and then investigate verbal and nonverbal features that reflect reviewers' intentions to post fake vs. authentic reviews by using topic modeling techniques. Our findings show topic differences between fake vs. authentic reviews. Based on the results, review manipulators tend to write reviews recommending particular movies, while authentic reviewers are likely to provide movie content information in their reviews. Also, we reveal that review manipulation happens at the early stage of product diffusion and contributes to increasing review ratings. Lastly, we discover that manipulated/fake reviews are more informative and positive. Our findings contribute to extend research on online fake reviews literature by innovatively examining review-writing intentions with topic differences, sentiment, and informativeness. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first attempt to introduce topic factors in the fake review detection literature.

Suggested Citation

  • Kim, Jong Min & Park, Keeyeon Ki-cheon & Mariani, Marcello & Wamba, Samuel Fosso, 2024. "Investigating reviewers' intentions to post fake vs. authentic reviews based on behavioral linguistic features," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:198:y:2024:i:c:s004016252300656x
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122971
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004016252300656X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122971?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:198:y:2024:i:c:s004016252300656x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.