IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jnddns/v2016y2016i1n3849153.html

A Study of Online Review Promptness in a B2C System

Author

Listed:
  • Junqiang Zhang
  • Liangqiang Li
  • Yu Qian

Abstract

Web 2.0 technologies have attracted an increasing number of active online writers and viewers. A deeper understanding of when customers will review and what motivates them to write online reviews is of both theoretical and practical significance. In this paper, we present a novel methodological framework, which consists of theoretical modeling and text‐mining technologies, to study the relationships among customers’ review promptness, their review opinions, and their review motivations. We first study customers’ online “purchase‐review” behavior dynamics; then, we introduce the LDA method to mine customers’ opinion from their review text; finally, we propose a theoretical model to explore some motivations for those people publishing review online. The analytical and experimental results with real data from a Chinese B2C website demonstrate that the behavior dynamics of customers’ online review are influenced by the multidimensional motivations, and some of them can be observed from their review behaviors, such as review promptness.

Suggested Citation

  • Junqiang Zhang & Liangqiang Li & Yu Qian, 2016. "A Study of Online Review Promptness in a B2C System," Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2016(1).
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:jnddns:v:2016:y:2016:i:1:n:3849153
    DOI: 10.1155/2016/3849153
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/3849153
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1155/2016/3849153?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wang Zhongmin, 2010. "Anonymity, Social Image, and the Competition for Volunteers: A Case Study of the Online Market for Reviews," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 10(1), pages 1-35, May.
    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. Kenju Kamei & Louis Putterman, 2018. "Reputation Transmission Without Benefit To The Reporter: A Behavioral Underpinning Of Markets In Experimental Focus," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 56(1), pages 158-172, January.
    2. , 2015. "Quality Versus Quantity in Information Transmission: Theory and Experimental Evidence," Working Paper 539, Department of Economics, University of Pittsburgh, revised Jan 2015.
    3. Alistair Wilson & Jonathan Lafky, 2015. "Quality Versus Quantity in Information Transmission: Theory and Experimental Evidence," Working Paper 540, Department of Economics, University of Pittsburgh, revised Jan 2015.
    4. Theodoros Lappas & Gaurav Sabnis & Georgios Valkanas, 2016. "The Impact of Fake Reviews on Online Visibility: A Vulnerability Assessment of the Hotel Industry," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 27(4), pages 940-961, December.
    5. Anna Kerkhof, 2020. "Advertising and Content Differentiation: Evidence from YouTube," CESifo Working Paper Series 8697, CESifo.
    6. Thomas J. Miles, 2015. "Do Attorney Surveys Measure Judicial Performance or Respondent Ideology? Evidence from Online Evaluations," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 44(S1), pages 231-267.
    7. Lafky, Jonathan, 2014. "Why do people rate? Theory and evidence on online ratings," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 554-570.
    8. Luís Cabral & Lingfang (Ivy) Li, 2015. "A Dollar for Your Thoughts: Feedback-Conditional Rebates on eBay," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(9), pages 2052-2063, September.
    9. Vinayak Deshpande & Pradeep K. Pendem, 2023. "Logistics Performance, Ratings, and Its Impact on Customer Purchasing Behavior and Sales in E-Commerce Platforms," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 25(3), pages 827-845, May.
    10. Uttara M. Ananthakrishnan & Beibei Li & Michael D. Smith, 2020. "A Tangled Web: Should Online Review Portals Display Fraudulent Reviews?," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 31(3), pages 950-971, September.
    11. Anna Kerkhof & Johannes Münster, 2021. "Detecting coverage bias in user-generated content," ECONtribute Discussion Papers Series 057, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.
    12. Hoon S. Choi & Michele Maasberg, 2022. "An empirical analysis of experienced reviewers in online communities: what, how, and why to review," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 32(3), pages 1293-1310, September.
    13. Lafky, Jonathan & Wilson, Alistair J., 2020. "Experimenting with incentives for information transmission: Quantity versus quality," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 314-331.
    14. Gordon Burtch & Anindya Ghose & Sunil Wattal, 2015. "The hidden cost of accommodating crowdfunder privacy preferences: a randomized field experiment," Journal of Financial Perspectives, EY Global FS Institute, vol. 3(3), pages 138-154.
    15. Michael Luca, 2011. "Reviews, Reputation, and Revenue: The Case of Yelp.com," Harvard Business School Working Papers 12-016, Harvard Business School, revised Mar 2016.
    16. Shibo Bian & Iftekhar Hasan & Xunxiao Wang & Zhipeng Yan, 2024. "Do markets value manager-investor interaction quality? Evidence from IPO returns," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 63(2), pages 599-632, August.
    17. Zhihong Ke & De Liu & Daniel J. Brass, 2020. "Do Online Friends Bring Out the Best in Us? The Effect of Friend Contributions on Online Review Provision," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 31(4), pages 1322-1336, December.
    18. Anna Kerkhof & Johannes Münster, 2021. "Detecting Coverage Bias in User-Generated Content," CESifo Working Paper Series 8844, CESifo.
    19. Ni Huang & Yili Hong & Gordon Burtch, 2015. "Digital Social Visibility, Anonymity and User Content Generation: Evidence from Natural Experiments," Working Papers 15-04, NET Institute.
    20. Weijia (Daisy) Dai & Ginger Jin & Jungmin Lee & Michael Luca, 2018. "Aggregation of consumer ratings: an application to Yelp.com," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 289-339, September.

    More about this item

    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:wly:jnddns:v:2016:y:2016:i:1:n:3849153. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/3059 .

    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.