| Literature DB >> 29615851 |
Cuicui Wang1,2,3, Yun Li1,2, Xuan Luo1,2, Qingguo Ma3,4,5, Weizhong Fu1,2, Huijian Fu6.
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.Entities:
Keywords: LPP; N2; fake rating behavior; money; neuromarketing
Year: 2018 PMID: 29615851 PMCID: PMC5867349 DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2018.00156
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Neurosci ISSN: 1662-453X Impact factor: 4.677
Figure 1Experimental task: The participants were instructed to evaluate whether they would give a five-star rating for the S1 for different coupon strategies (RI or RN strategies) provided in S2.
Figure 2FR results. The rates of giving five-stars for the factors of coupon strategy (RI vs. RN) and product quality (slightly defective products vs. seriously defective products vs. not defective products). *p < 0.05, ***p < 0.001.
Figure 3RT results. The reaction times for the product quality factor (slightly defective products vs. seriously defective products vs. not defective products). **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
Figure 4Grand-average ERP waveforms of the frontal, central and parietal regions collected from the Fz, Cz, and Pz electrodes. Comparison of the amplitudes of the N2 and LPP components between the two conditions: the RI strategy vs. the RN strategy.
Figure 5Grand-average ERP waveforms of the frontal, fronto-central and central regions recorded from the Fz, FCz, and Cz electrodes. N1 amplitude comparison of the three product conditions, i.e., slightly defective products vs. seriously defective products vs. not defective products.