IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/elcore/v18y2018i2d10.1007_s10660-017-9258-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Opinion evolution of online consumer reviews in the e-commerce environment

Author

Listed:
  • Yan Wan

    (Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications)

  • Baojun Ma

    (Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications)

  • Yu Pan

    (Shanghai International Studies University)

Abstract

Online consumer reviews play an important role in shaping potential customers’ purchase decisions in e-commerce. Previous studies have analyzed the influence of online consumer reviews on sales, mainly considering factors such as reviewers’ and viewers’ profiles, information provided, and product features. However, there are relatively few studies that discuss how online consumer reviews interact with each other and how consumers’ opinions evolve over time. This paper proposes an opinion evolution dynamics model that is applicable to online consumer reviews in the e-commerce environment by taking into account influencing factors such as viewer reading limits, review sorting and releasing strategies, convergence parameters, review posting possibilities, and confidence thresholds. Using multi-agent simulation based on the proposed opinion evolution dynamics model, the paper discusses how these factors affect viewers’ opinions, and the opinion evolution process itself. Finally, conclusions and managerial implications of the simulation results are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Yan Wan & Baojun Ma & Yu Pan, 2018. "Opinion evolution of online consumer reviews in the e-commerce environment," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 18(2), pages 291-311, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:elcore:v:18:y:2018:i:2:d:10.1007_s10660-017-9258-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s10660-017-9258-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10660-017-9258-7
    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/s10660-017-9258-7?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. Chen, Yubo & Fay, Scott & Wang, Qi, 2011. "The Role of Marketing in Social Media: How Online Consumer Reviews Evolve," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 85-94.
    2. Hong-Jun Li & Lu-Zi Lin & He Sun & Ming-Feng He, 2008. "The Sznajd Model With Team Work," International Journal of Modern Physics C (IJMPC), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 19(04), pages 549-555.
    3. Santo Fortunato, 2005. "On The Consensus Threshold For The Opinion Dynamics Of Krause–Hegselmann," International Journal of Modern Physics C (IJMPC), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(02), pages 259-270.
    4. Sousa, A.O., 2005. "Consensus formation on a triad scale-free network," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 348(C), pages 701-710.
    5. 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.
    6. Mingfeng He & Bei Li & Lidong Luo, 2004. "Sznajd Model With "Social Temperature" And Defender On Small-World Networks," International Journal of Modern Physics C (IJMPC), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 15(07), pages 997-1003.
    7. Santo Fortunato, 2004. "UNIVERSALITY OF THE THRESHOLD FOR COMPLETE CONSENSUS FOR THE OPINION DYNAMICS OF DEFFUANTet al," International Journal of Modern Physics C (IJMPC), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 15(09), pages 1301-1307.
    8. Rainer Hegselmann & Ulrich Krause, 2002. "Opinion Dynamics and Bounded Confidence Models, Analysis and Simulation," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 5(3), pages 1-2.
    9. Elgazzar, A.S., 2003. "Applications of small-world networks to some socio-economic systems," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 324(1), pages 402-407.
    10. Guillaume Deffuant & David Neau & Frederic Amblard & Gérard Weisbuch, 2000. "Mixing beliefs among interacting agents," Advances in Complex Systems (ACS), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 3(01n04), pages 87-98.
    11. Katarzyna Sznajd-Weron, 2005. "Sznajd model and its applications," HSC Research Reports HSC/05/04, Hugo Steinhaus Center, Wroclaw University of Technology.
    12. Purnawirawan, Nathalia & De Pelsmacker, Patrick & Dens, Nathalie, 2012. "Balance and Sequence in Online Reviews: How Perceived Usefulness Affects Attitudes and Intentions," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 244-255.
    13. L. G. Pee, 2016. "Customer co-creation in B2C e-commerce: does it lead to better new products?," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 217-243, June.
    14. Fabio Stucchi Vannucchi & Carmen P. C. Prado, 2009. "Sznajd Model And Proportional Elections: The Role Of The Topology Of The Network," International Journal of Modern Physics C (IJMPC), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(06), pages 979-990.
    15. David Godes & José C. Silva, 2012. "Sequential and Temporal Dynamics of Online Opinion," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(3), pages 448-473, May.
    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. Janina Seutter & Kristin Kutzner & Maren Stadtländer & Dennis Kundisch & Ralf Knackstedt, 2023. "“Sorry, too much information”—Designing online review systems that support information search and processing," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 33(1), pages 1-19, December.
    2. Sarah Bayer & Henner Gimpel & Daniel Rau, 2021. "IoT-commerce - opportunities for customers through an affordance lens," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 31(1), pages 27-50, March.
    3. Quanbo Zha & Gang Kou & Hengjie Zhang & Haiming Liang & Xia Chen & Cong-Cong Li & Yucheng Dong, 2020. "Opinion dynamics in finance and business: a literature review and research opportunities," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 6(1), pages 1-22, December.
    4. Xusen Cheng & Linlin Su & Alex Zarifis, 2019. "Designing a talents training model for cross-border e-commerce: a mixed approach of problem-based learning with social media," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 801-822, December.
    5. Jianping Li & Yinhong Yao & Yuanjie Xu & Jingyu Li & Lu Wei & Xiaoqian Zhu, 2019. "Consumer’s risk perception on the Belt and Road countries: evidence from the cross-border e-commerce," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 823-840, December.
    6. Takumi Kato, 2022. "Rating valence versus rating distribution: perceived helpfulness of word of mouth in e-commerce," SN Business & Economics, Springer, vol. 2(11), pages 1-24, November.

    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. Sznajd-Weron, Katarzyna & Sznajd, Józef & Weron, Tomasz, 2021. "A review on the Sznajd model — 20 years after," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 565(C).
    2. Shang, Lihui & Zhao, Mingming & Ai, Jun & Su, Zhan, 2021. "Opinion evolution in the Sznajd model on interdependent chains," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 565(C).
    3. Agnieszka Kowalska-Styczeń & Krzysztof Malarz, 2020. "Noise induced unanimity and disorder in opinion formation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-22, July.
    4. Li, Mingwu & Dankowicz, Harry, 2019. "Impact of temporal network structures on the speed of consensus formation in opinion dynamics," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 523(C), pages 1355-1370.
    5. Quanbo Zha & Gang Kou & Hengjie Zhang & Haiming Liang & Xia Chen & Cong-Cong Li & Yucheng Dong, 2020. "Opinion dynamics in finance and business: a literature review and research opportunities," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 6(1), pages 1-22, December.
    6. Takesue, Hirofumi, 2023. "Relative opinion similarity leads to the emergence of large clusters in opinion formation models," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 622(C).
    7. Huang, Changwei & Dai, Qionglin & Han, Wenchen & Feng, Yuee & Cheng, Hongyan & Li, Haihong, 2018. "Effects of heterogeneous convergence rate on consensus in opinion dynamics," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 499(C), pages 428-435.
    8. Huang, Changwei & Bian, Huanyu & Han, Wenchen, 2024. "Breaking the symmetry neutralizes the extremization under the repulsion and higher order interactions," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    9. Catherine A. Glass & David H. Glass, 2021. "Social Influence of Competing Groups and Leaders in Opinion Dynamics," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 58(3), pages 799-823, October.
    10. Moon, Sangkil & Kim, Seung-Wook & Iacobucci, Dawn, 2024. "Dynamic relationship changes between reviewers and consumers in online product reviews," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 100(1), pages 70-84.
    11. Francisco J. León-Medina & Jordi Tena-Sánchez & Francisco J. Miguel, 2020. "Fakers becoming believers: how opinion dynamics are shaped by preference falsification, impression management and coherence heuristics," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 54(2), pages 385-412, April.
    12. Lu, Xi & Mo, Hongming & Deng, Yong, 2015. "An evidential opinion dynamics model based on heterogeneous social influential power," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 98-107.
    13. Kaushik, Kapil & Mishra, Rajhans & Rana, Nripendra P. & Dwivedi, Yogesh K., 2018. "Exploring reviews and review sequences on e-commerce platform: A study of helpful reviews on Amazon.in," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 21-32.
    14. Huang, Changwei & Hou, Yongzhao & Han, Wenchen, 2023. "Coevolution of consensus and cooperation in evolutionary Hegselmann–Krause dilemma with the cooperation cost," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    15. Sungsik Park & Woochoel Shin & Jinhong Xie, 2021. "The Fateful First Consumer Review," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(3), pages 481-507, May.
    16. María Cecilia Gimenez & Luis Reinaudi & Ana Pamela Paz-García & Paulo Marcelo Centres & Antonio José Ramirez-Pastor, 2021. "Opinion evolution in the presence of constant propaganda: homogeneous and localized cases," The European Physical Journal B: Condensed Matter and Complex Systems, Springer;EDP Sciences, vol. 94(1), pages 1-11, January.
    17. Kułakowski, Krzysztof, 2009. "Opinion polarization in the Receipt–Accept–Sample model," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 388(4), pages 469-476.
    18. Guillaume Deffuant & Ilaria Bertazzi & Sylvie Huet, 2018. "The Dark Side Of Gossips: Hints From A Simple Opinion Dynamics Model," Advances in Complex Systems (ACS), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 21(06n07), pages 1-20, September.
    19. Toth, Gabor & Galam, Serge, 2022. "Deviations from the majority: A local flip model," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    20. G Jordan Maclay & Moody Ahmad, 2021. "An agent based force vector model of social influence that predicts strong polarization in a connected world," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(11), pages 1-42, November.

    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:elcore:v:18:y:2018:i:2:d:10.1007_s10660-017-9258-7. 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.