IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/fuzodm/v21y2022i1d10.1007_s10700-021-09359-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Selecting products through text reviews: An MCDM method incorporating personalized heuristic judgments in the prospect theory

Author

Listed:
  • Meng Zhao

    (Northeastern University
    Sichuan University
    Northeastern University at Qinhuangdao)

  • Xinyuan Shen

    (Peking University)

  • Huchang Liao

    (Sichuan University)

  • Mingyao Cai

    (Carleton University)

Abstract

Online reviews have become an increasingly popular information source in consumer’s decision making process. To help consumers make informed decisions, how to select products through online reviews is a valuable research topic. This work deals with a personized product selection problem with review sentiments under probabilistic linguistic circumstances. To this end, we propose a multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) method incorporating personalized heuristic judgments in the prospect theory (PT). We focus on the role of personalized heuristic judgments on review helpfulness in the final decision outcomes. We demonstrate the consistency between the three common heuristic judgments (with respect to review valence, sentiment extremity, and aspiration levels) and the three behavioral principles of the PT. Then, the products are ranked with the probabilistic linguistic term set (PLTS) input, based on the proposed adjustable PT framework, in which the coefficients of negativity bias are derived from the consumer’s heuristic judgments. Finally, a real case on TripAdvisor.com and two simulation experiments are given to illustrate the validity of the proposed method.

Suggested Citation

  • Meng Zhao & Xinyuan Shen & Huchang Liao & Mingyao Cai, 2022. "Selecting products through text reviews: An MCDM method incorporating personalized heuristic judgments in the prospect theory," Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 21-44, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:fuzodm:v:21:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1007_s10700-021-09359-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s10700-021-09359-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10700-021-09359-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10700-021-09359-8?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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    2. Yang Liu & Jian-Wu Bi & Zhi-Ping Fan, 2017. "A Method for Ranking Products Through Online Reviews Based on Sentiment Classification and Interval-Valued Intuitionistic Fuzzy TOPSIS," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(06), pages 1497-1522, November.
    3. Liu, Jiapeng & Liao, Xiuwu & Huang, Wei & Liao, Xianzhao, 2019. "Market segmentation: A multiple criteria approach combining preference analysis and segmentation decision," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 1-13.
    4. Dong Zhang & Chong Wu & Jiaming Liu, 2020. "Ranking products with online reviews: A novel method based on hesitant fuzzy set and sentiment word framework," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 71(3), pages 528-542, March.
    5. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    6. Haug, Jørgen & Hens, Thorsten & Woehrmann, Peter, 2013. "Risk aversion in the large and in the small," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 118(2), pages 310-313.
    7. Chris Forman & Anindya Ghose & Batia Wiesenfeld, 2008. "Examining the Relationship Between Reviews and Sales: The Role of Reviewer Identity Disclosure in Electronic Markets," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 19(3), pages 291-313, September.
    8. Huchang Liao & Xiaomei Mi & Zeshui Xu, 2020. "A survey of decision-making methods with probabilistic linguistic information: bibliometrics, preliminaries, methodologies, applications and future directions," Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 81-134, March.
    9. Milton Friedman & L. J. Savage, 1948. "The Utility Analysis of Choices Involving Risk," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 56, pages 279-279.
    10. Park, Sangwon & Nicolau, Juan L., 2015. "Asymmetric effects of online consumer reviews," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 67-83.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Pingping Cao & Jin Zheng & Mingyang Li, 2023. "Product Selection Considering Multiple Consumers’ Expectations and Online Reviews: A Method Based on Intuitionistic Fuzzy Soft Sets and TODIM," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-20, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nicholas Barberis, 2012. "A Model of Casino Gambling," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(1), pages 35-51, January.
    2. Hooi Hooi Lean & Michael McAleer & Wing-Keung Wong, 2013. "Risk-averse and Risk-seeking Investor Preferences for Oil Spot and Futures," Documentos de Trabajo del ICAE 2013-31, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales, Instituto Complutense de Análisis Económico, revised Aug 2013.
    3. Martin Kukuk & Stefan Winter, 2008. "An Alternative Explanation of the Favorite-Longshot Bias," Journal of Gambling Business and Economics, University of Buckingham Press, vol. 2(2), pages 79-96, September.
    4. Moshe Levy & Haim Levy, 2013. "Prospect Theory: Much Ado About Nothing?," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 7, pages 129-144, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    5. Evgeny Kagan & Alexander Rybalov, 2022. "Subjective Trusts and Prospects: Some Practical Remarks on Decision Making with Imperfect Information," SN Operations Research Forum, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 1-24, March.
    6. Pedro Bordalo & Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, 2013. "Salience and Consumer Choice," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 121(5), pages 803-843.
    7. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten & Meyer, Steffen & Hackethal, Andreas, 2019. "Taming models of prospect theory in the wild? Estimation of Vlcek and Hens (2011)," SAFE Working Paper Series 146, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2019.
    8. Kuo-Hwa Chang & Michael Nayat Young, 2019. "Portfolios Optimizations of Behavioral Stocks with Perception Probability Weightings," Annals of Economics and Finance, Society for AEF, vol. 20(2), pages 817-845, November.
    9. Aloisio Araujo & Alain Chateauneuf & Juan Pablo Gama & Rodrigo Novinski, 2018. "General Equilibrium With Uncertainty Loving Preferences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 86(5), pages 1859-1871, September.
    10. Enrico G. De Giorgi & David B. Brown & Melvyn Sim, 2010. "Dual representation of choice and aspirational preferences," University of St. Gallen Department of Economics working paper series 2010 2010-07, Department of Economics, University of St. Gallen.
    11. Wakker, Peter P. & Zank, Horst, 2002. "A simple preference foundation of cumulative prospect theory with power utility," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 46(7), pages 1253-1271, July.
    12. Louis Lévy-Garboua, 1999. "Expected Utility and Cognitive Consistency," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-03674666, HAL.
    13. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:6:p:1324-1369 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Carole Bernard & Jit Seng Chen & Steven Vanduffel, 2014. "Optimal portfolios under worst-case scenarios," Quantitative Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(4), pages 657-671, April.
    15. Zuo, Jingjing & Qiu, Baoyin & Zhu, Guoyiming & Lei, Guangyong, 2023. "Local speculative culture and stock price crash risk," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    16. Gilbert W. Bassett, 2004. "Pessimistic Portfolio Allocation and Choquet Expected Utility," Journal of Financial Econometrics, Oxford University Press, vol. 2(4), pages 477-492.
    17. Pavlo Blavatskyy & Ganna Pogrebna, 2008. "Risk Aversion when Gains are Likely and Unlikely: Evidence from a Natural Experiment with Large Stakes," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 64(2), pages 395-420, March.
    18. Georgalos, Konstantinos & Paya, Ivan & Peel, David A., 2021. "On the contribution of the Markowitz model of utility to explain risky choice in experimental research," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 527-543.
    19. Pavlo R. Blavatskyy, "undated". "A Stochastic Expected Utility Theory," IEW - Working Papers 231, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    20. Pedro Bordalo & Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, 2012. "Salience Theory of Choice Under Risk," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 127(3), pages 1243-1285.
    21. Zhihui Lv & Amanda M. Y. Chu & Wing Keung Wong & Thomas C. Chiang, 2021. "The maximum-return-and-minimum-volatility effect: evidence from choosing risky and riskless assets to form a portfolio," Risk Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 23(1), pages 97-122, June.

    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:spr:fuzodm:v:21:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1007_s10700-021-09359-8. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.