IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/jas/jasssj/2024-100-2.html

Consumer Heterogeneity and E-Retailing Market Concentration: An Agent-Based Approach

Author

Abstract

The phenomenon of high concentration in China's e-retail markets remains not fully understood. This study aims to explore its potential origins from the perspective of consumer types. By theoretically examining the impact of consumer type on market structure, this study assumes sellers to be homogeneous, while categorizing consumers based on two dimensions: risk-taking tendency (preference for new products over old ones) and pickiness tendency (likelihood to give negative rather than positive ratings). An agent-based simulation model is developed to examine the trends of market concentration ratios under diverse conditions. The simulation findings indicate that consumers' risk-taking tendency influences market concentration and volatility. Specifically, higher risk preference tends to reduce market concentration, making the market more volatile. Similarly, the higher the consumers' pickiness tendency, the more it hinders market concentration. Additionally, the relative weight of word-of-mouth (WoM) on a product plays a crucial role in market dynamics. When the weight of sales is greater, market concentration is more likely. However, if WoM becomes more influential, positive ratings enhance sales' role in increasing market concentration, while negative ratings suppress it. In other words, when picky consumers dominate the market, higher sales, which means more negative ratings, can actually diminish the product's WoM and subsequently reduce the product's attractiveness. This prevents any product from maintaining a sales advantage, making it hard to achieve high market concentration. This research aligns with existing market structure theories and has implications for e-retailers and administrators.

Suggested Citation

  • Teng Li, 2025. "Consumer Heterogeneity and E-Retailing Market Concentration: An Agent-Based Approach," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 28(4), pages 1-3.
  • Handle: RePEc:jas:jasssj:2024-100-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.jasss.org/28/4/3/3.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jayson L. Lusk & Keith H. Coble, 2005. "Risk Perceptions, Risk Preference, and Acceptance of Risky Food," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(2), pages 393-405.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Fossen, Frank M. & Glocker, Daniela, 2017. "Stated and revealed heterogeneous risk preferences in educational choice," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 1-25.
    2. Li Zhao & Shumin Liu & Haiying Gu & David Ahlstrom, 2023. "Risk Amplification, Risk Preference and Acceptance of Transgenic Technology," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-22, September.
    3. Md. Shakhawat Hossain, 2025. "Assessing smallholder farmers’ flood risk behavior and their willingness to pay for crop insurance as a risk coping strategy in northern Bangladesh," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 121(4), pages 4191-4217, March.
    4. Christine L. Crago & Rong Rong, 2025. "Behavioral preferences and contract choice in the residential solar PV market," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 107(1), pages 27-53, January.
    5. Drichoutis, Andreas & Lusk, Jayson, 2012. "Risk preference elicitation without the confounding effect of probability weighting," MPRA Paper 37762, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Yu Na Lee & Laura Stortz & Mike von Massow & Christopher Kimmerer, 2023. "Impact of ‘‘high in” front‐of‐package nutrition labeling on food choices: Evidence from a grocery shopping experiment," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 71(3-4), pages 277-301, September.
    7. Xu, Yalin & Zhang, Zhiwen & Ren, Yanjun & Yuan, Rong & Wang, Yanan & Li, Rui & Zhao, Shunan & Qiu, Lu, 2024. "Can carbon labels shift consumers towards sustainable food? Evidence from Chinese consumers," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 8, pages 1-13.
    8. Shepherd, Jonathan D. & Saghaian, Sayed H., 2015. "Risk Perception and Trust Interaction in Response to Food Safety Events across Products and the Implications for Agribusiness Firms," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 46(3), pages 1-21, November.
    9. Evans, Keith S. & Teisl, Mario F. & Lando, Amy. M. & Liu, Sherry T., 2020. "Risk perceptions and food-handling practices in the home," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    10. Beixun Huang & Haijun Li & Zeying Huang & Jiazhang Huang & Junmao Sun, 2022. "Sustainable Healthy Diets and Demand for the Front-of-Package Labeling: Evidence from Consumption of Fresh Pork," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-14, September.
    11. Wu, Haixia & Ge, Yan & Li, Jianping, 2023. "Uncertainty, time preference and households’ adoption of rooftop photovoltaic technology," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 276(C).
    12. Costa-Font, Montserrat & Gil, José M. & Traill, W. Bruce, 2008. "Consumer acceptance, valuation of and attitudes towards genetically modified food: Review and implications for food policy," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 99-111, April.
    13. Glynn T. Tonsor & Ted C. Schroeder & Joost M. E. Pennings, 2009. "Factors Impacting Food Safety Risk Perceptions," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(3), pages 625-644, September.
    14. Michael J. Weir & Thomas W. Sproul, 2019. "Identifying Drivers of Genetically Modified Seafood Demand: Evidence from a Choice Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(14), pages 1-21, July.
    15. Lee, Sang Hyeon & Lee, Ji Yong & Han, Doo Bong & Nayga, Rodolfo M. Jr., 2014. "Assessing Korean Consumers' Valuation for BSE-Tested and Country of Origin Labeled Beef Products," Journal of Rural Development/Nongchon-Gyeongje, Korea Rural Economic Institute, vol. 37(3), pages 1-21.
    16. Amalia DUTU & Mihaela DIACONU & Daniela PIRVU & Olimpia OANCEA & Mihaela BRINZEA, 2020. "The Consumer Behavior Under The Pandemic Uncertainty: Analysis Of The Empirical Findings In Global Context," Scientific Bulletin - Economic Sciences, University of Pitesti, vol. 19(2), pages 31-37.
    17. Zack Dorner & Daniel A. Brent & Anke Leroux, 2019. "Preferences for Intrinsically Risky Attributes," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 95(4), pages 494-514.
    18. David Masclet & Youenn Loheac & Laurent Denant-Boemont & Nathalie Colombier, 2004. "Group and individual risk preferences: a lottery-choice experiment," Cahiers de la Maison des Sciences Economiques bla06063, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), revised Sep 2006.
    19. Vassalos, Michael & Li, Yingbo, . "Assessing the Impact of Fresh Vegetable Growers’ Risk Aversion Levels and Risk Preferences on the Probability of Adopting Marketing Contracts: A Bayesian Approach," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 19(01), pages 1-18.
    20. Galizzi Matteo M. & Miraldo Marisa, 2017. "Are You What You Eat? Healthy Behaviour and Risk Preferences," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 17(1), pages 1-25, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:jas:jasssj:2024-100-2. 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: Francesco Renzini (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.