IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/orijoc/v32y4i2020p996-1011.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Understanding and Predicting Users’ Rating Behavior: A Cognitive Perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Qiudan Li

    (The State Key Laboratory of Management and Control for Complex Systems, Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 100190 Beijing, China; Shenzhen Artificial Intelligence and Data Science Institute (Longhua), 518110, Shenzhen, China;)

  • Daniel Dajun Zeng

    (The State Key Laboratory of Management and Control for Complex Systems, Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 100190 Beijing, China; Shenzhen Artificial Intelligence and Data Science Institute (Longhua), 518110 Shenzhen, China; School of Artificial Intelligence, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, 100049 Beijing, China;)

  • David Jingjun Xu

    (Department of Information Systems, College of Business, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China)

  • Ruoran Liu

    (The State Key Laboratory of Management and Control for Complex Systems, Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 100190 Beijing, China; School of Artificial Intelligence, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, 100049, Beijing, China; Shenzhen Artificial Intelligence and Data Science Institute (Longhua), 518110, Shenzhen, China;)

  • Riheng Yao

    (The State Key Laboratory of Management and Control for Complex Systems, Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 100190 Beijing, China; School of Artificial Intelligence, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, 100049, Beijing, China; Shenzhen Artificial Intelligence and Data Science Institute (Longhua), 518110, Shenzhen, China;)

Abstract

Online reviews are playing an increasingly important role in understanding and predicting users’ rating behavior, which brings great opportunities for users and organizations to make better decisions. In recent years, rating prediction has become a research hotspot. Existing research primarily focuses on generating content representation based on context information and using the overall rating score to optimize the semantics of the content, which largely ignores aspect ratings reflecting users’ feelings about more specific attributes of a product and semantic associations among aspect ratings, words, and sentences. Cognitive theory research has shown that users evaluate and rate products following the part–whole pattern; namely, they use aspect ratings to explicitly express sentiments toward aspect attributes of products and then describe those attributes in detail through the corresponding opinion words and sentences. In this paper, we develop a deep learning-based method for understanding and predicting users’ rating behavior, which adopts the hierarchical attention mechanism to unify the explicit aspect ratings and review contents. We conducted experiments using data collected from two real-world review sites and found that our proposed approach significantly outperforms existing methods. Experiments also show that the performance advantage of the proposed approach mainly comes from the high-quality representation of review content and the effective integration of aspect ratings. A user study empirically shows that aspect ratings influence users’ perceived review helpfulness and reduce users’ cognitive effort in understanding the overall score given for a product. The research contributes to the rating behavior analysis literature and has significant practical implications.

Suggested Citation

  • Qiudan Li & Daniel Dajun Zeng & David Jingjun Xu & Ruoran Liu & Riheng Yao, 2020. "Understanding and Predicting Users’ Rating Behavior: A Cognitive Perspective," INFORMS Journal on Computing, INFORMS, vol. 32(4), pages 996-1011, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:orijoc:v:32:y:4:i:2020:p:996-1011
    DOI: 10.1287/ijoc.2019.0919
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1287/ijoc.2019.0919
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/ijoc.2019.0919?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. Nelson, Phillip, 1970. "Information and Consumer Behavior," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 78(2), pages 311-329, March-Apr.
    2. Vijay Khatri & Iris Vessey & V. Ramesh & Paul Clay & Sung-Jin Park, 2006. "Understanding Conceptual Schemas: Exploring the Role of Application and IS Domain Knowledge," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 17(1), pages 81-99, March.
    3. Berinsky, Adam J. & Huber, Gregory A. & Lenz, Gabriel S., 2012. "Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 351-368, July.
    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. Marios Kokkodis & Panagiotis G. Ipeirotis, 2016. "Reputation Transferability in Online Labor Markets," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(6), pages 1687-1706, June.
    2. Obal, Michael & Kunz, Werner, 2016. "Cross-cultural differences in uses of online experts," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 1148-1156.
    3. Plotkina, Daria & Munzel, Andreas, 2016. "Delight the experts, but never dissatisfy your customers! A multi-category study on the effects of online review source on intention to buy a new product," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 1-11.
    4. Robert Zinko & Paul Stolk & Zhan Furner & Brad Almond, 2020. "A picture is worth a thousand words: how images influence information quality and information load in online reviews," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 30(4), pages 775-789, December.
    5. Zhifeng Gao & Ted C. Schroeder, 2009. "Consumer responses to new food quality information: are some consumers more sensitive than others?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 339-346, May.
    6. Heineck, Guido & Süssmuth, Bernd, 2013. "A different look at Lenin’s legacy: Social capital and risk taking in the Two Germanies," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 789-803.
    7. Thunström, Linda & Nordström, Jonas & Shogren, Jason F., 2015. "Certainty and overconfidence in future preferences for food," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 101-113.
    8. J. K. Pappalardo, 2022. "Economics of Consumer Protection: Contributions and Challenges in Estimating Consumer Injury and Evaluating Consumer Protection Policy," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 201-238, June.
    9. Alexander, Corinne E., 2002. "The Role Of Seed Company Supplied Information In Farmers' Decisions," 2002 Annual meeting, July 28-31, Long Beach, CA 19617, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    10. Mtimet, Nadhem & Ujiie, Kiyokazu & Kashiwagi, Kenichi & Zaibet, Lokman & Nagaki, Masakazu, 2011. "The effects of Information and Country of Origin on Japanese Olive Oil Consumer Selection," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114642, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. Dhaval M. Dave, 2013. "Effects of Pharmaceutical Promotion: A Review and Assessment," NBER Working Papers 18830, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Thomas de Haan & Theo Offerman & Randolph Sloof, 2015. "Money Talks? An Experimental Investigation Of Cheap Talk And Burned Money," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 56(4), pages 1385-1426, November.
    13. Filistrucchi, L. & Ozbugday, F.C., 2012. "Mandatory Quality Disclosure and Quality Supply : Evidence from German Hospitals," Other publications TiSEM 680b0e3e-d3f5-4b91-9803-8, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    14. Robbett, Andrea & Matthews, Peter Hans, 2018. "Partisan bias and expressive voting," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 107-120.
    15. Gu, Yiquan & Rasch, Alexander & Wenzel, Tobias, 2022. "Consumer salience and quality provision in (un)regulated public service markets," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    16. Wei He & Chenyuan Jin, 2024. "A study on the influence of the characteristics of key opinion leaders on consumers’ purchase intention in live streaming commerce: based on dual-systems theory," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 1235-1265, June.
    17. Greiff, Matthias & Egbert, Henrik, 2016. "A Survey of the Empirical Evidence on PWYW Pricing," MPRA Paper 68693, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. David Bardey & Denis Gromb & David Martimort & Jérôme Pouyet, 2016. "Drugs, Showrooms and Financial Products: Competition and Regulation when Sellers Provide Expert Advice," PSE Working Papers halshs-01400841, HAL.
    19. Jhunjhunwala, Tanushree, 2021. "Searching to avoid regret: An experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 298-319.
    20. Rodríguez, Elsa Mirta M. & Lacaze, María Victoria & Lupín, Beatriz, 2007. "Willingness to pay for organic food in Argentina: evidence from a consumer survey," Nülan. Deposited Documents 1300, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales, Centro de Documentación.

    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:inm:orijoc:v:32:y:4:i:2020:p:996-1011. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.