↓ Skip to main content

The Effects of Money on Fake Rating Behavior in E-Commerce: Electrophysiological Time Course Evidence From Consumers

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Effects of Money on Fake Rating Behavior in E-Commerce: Electrophysiological Time Course Evidence From Consumers
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, March 2018
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2018.00156
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cuicui Wang, Yun Li, Xuan Luo, Qingguo Ma, Weizhong Fu, Huijian Fu

Abstract

Online ratings impose significant effects on the behaviors of potential customers. Thus, online merchants try to adopt strategies that affect this rating behavior, and most of these strategies are connected to money, such as the strategies of returning cash coupons if a consumer gives a five-star rating (RI strategy, an acronym for "returning" and "if") or returning cash coupons directly with no additional requirements (RN strategy, an acronym for "returning" and "no"). The current study explored whether a certain strategy (RN or RI) was more likely to give rise to false rating behaviors, as assessed by event-related potentials. A two-stimulus paradigm was used in this experiment. The first stimulus (S1) was the picture of a product with four Chinese characters that reflected the product quality (slightly defective vs. seriously defective vs. not defective), and the second stimulus (S2) displayed the coupon strategy (RN or RI). The participants were asked to decide whether or not to give a five-star rating. The behavioral results showed that the RI strategy led to a higher rate of five-star ratings than the RN strategy. For the electrophysiological time courses, the N1, N2, and LPP components were evaluated. The slightly defective products elicited a larger amplitude of the N1 component than the seriously defective and not-defective products, reflecting that perceptual difficulty was associated with the processing of the slightly defective products. The RI strategy evoked a less negative N2 and a more positive LPP than the RN strategy, indicating that the subjects perceived less conflict and experienced stronger incentives when processing the RI strategy. These findings will benefit future studies of fake online comments and provide evidence supporting the policy of forbidding the use of the RI strategy in e-commerce.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 75 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 16%
Student > Master 8 11%
Other 4 5%
Student > Postgraduate 3 4%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 4%
Other 13 17%
Unknown 32 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Business, Management and Accounting 15 20%
Social Sciences 5 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 5%
Computer Science 3 4%
Neuroscience 3 4%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 36 48%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 March 2019.
All research outputs
#15,745,807
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#6,691
of 11,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#194,996
of 348,698 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#173
of 268 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,542 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 348,698 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 268 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.