| Literature DB >> 35178011 |
Jun Wang1, Tao Shu1, Wenjin Zhao1, Jixian Zhou1.
Abstract
From the end of 2018 in China, the Big-data Driven Price Discrimination (BDPD) of online consumption raised public debate on social media. To study the consumers' attitude about the BDPD, this study constructed a semantic recognition frame to deconstruct the Affection-Behavior-Cognition (ABC) consumer attitude theory using machine learning models inclusive of the Labeled Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA), Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM), and Snow Natural Language Processing (NLP), based on social media comments text dataset. Similar to the questionnaires published results, this article verified that 61% of consumers expressed negative sentiment toward BDPD in general. Differently, on a finer scale, this study further measured the negative sentiments that differ significantly among different topics. The measurement results show that the topics "Regular Customers Priced High" (69%) and "Usage Intention" (67%) occupy the top two places of negative sentiment among consumers, and the topic "Precision Marketing" (42%) is at the bottom. Moreover, semantic recognition results that 49% of consumers' comments involve multiple topics, indicating that consumers have a pretty clear cognition of the complex status of the BDPD. Importantly, this study found some topics that had not been focused on in previous studies, such as more than 8% of consumers calling for government and legal departments to regulate BDPD behavior, which indicates that quite enough consumers are losing confidence in the self-discipline of the platform enterprises. Another interesting result is that consumers who pursue solutions to the BDPD belong to two mutually exclusive groups: government protection and self-protection. The significance of this study is that it reminds the e-commerce platforms to pay attention to the potential harm for consumers' psychology while bringing additional profits through the BDPD. Otherwise, the negative consumer attitudes may cause damage to brand image, business reputation, and the sustainable development of the platforms themselves. It also provides the government supervision departments an advanced analysis method reference for more effective administration to protect social fairness.Entities:
Keywords: LSTM; Labeled LDA; Snow NLP; big data; consumer attitude analysis; price discrimination
Year: 2022 PMID: 35178011 PMCID: PMC8844018 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.803212
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
FIGURE 1The tripartite model of attitude structure.
FIGURE 2The research framework chart of consumer attitudes toward the Big-data Driven Price Discrimination (BDPD).
FIGURE 3The Labeled Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) model of semantic recognition framework.
The variables of the Labeled LDA model.
| Symbol | Explanation |
|
| The multinomial distribution parameter vector of the KTH topic |
| α | Dirichlet topic prior probability distribution parameters |
| η | Prior probability distribution of words |
| Φ | The prior probability distribution of the label of the KTH topic |
|
| Binary (present/absent) topic indicator vector |
|
| Projection matrix |
FIGURE 4The Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) model of semantic recognition framework.
FIGURE 5The composition chart of the Labeled LDA model experimental results.
FIGURE 6The feature word lists of the target topics.
The word-to-word co-occurrence matrix date of “Regular Customers Priced High” (topic1).
| Feature word | FW11 | FW12 | FW13 | FW14 | FW15 | FW16 | FW17 | FW18 |
| FW11 | 6585 | 395 | 702 | 489 | 835 | 1009 | 864 | 295 |
| FW12 | 395 | 5433 | 1299 | 497 | 841 | 443 | 980 | 312 |
| FW13 | 702 | 1299 | 5220 | 344 | 429 | 290 | 1316 | 326 |
| FW14 | 489 | 497 | 344 | 5149 | 466 | 904 | 1052 | 301 |
| FW15 | 835 | 841 | 429 | 466 | 4839 | 381 | 523 | 318 |
| FW16 | 1009 | 443 | 290 | 904 | 381 | 3005 | 338 | 238 |
| FW17 | 864 | 980 | 1316 | 1052 | 523 | 338 | 2905 | 275 |
| FW18 | 295 | 312 | 326 | 301 | 318 | 238 | 275 | 2854 |
The word-to-word co-occurrence matrix date of “Product Purchase Intention” (topic5).
| Feature word | FW 51 | FW 52 | FW 53 | FW 54 | FW 55 | FW 56 | FW 58 | FW 59 |
| FW 51 | 7731 | 682 | 645 | 577 | 381 | 770 | 264 | 210 |
| FW 52 | 682 | 2959 | 130 | 173 | 28 | 639 | 358 | 0 |
| FW 53 | 645 | 130 | 2593 | 96 | 42 | 39 | 56 | 31 |
| FW 54 | 577 | 173 | 96 | 1737 | 108 | 233 | 34 | 28 |
| FW 55 | 381 | 28 | 42 | 108 | 1333 | 344 | 36 | 110 |
| FW 56 | 770 | 639 | 39 | 233 | 344 | 1205 | 25 | 51 |
| FW 57 | 264 | 358 | 56 | 34 | 36 | 25 | 622 | 14 |
| FW 58 | 210 | 0 | 31 | 28 | 110 | 51 | 14 | 307 |
The performance of multi-label classification model.
| Model | MaP(+) | MaR(+) | MaF1(+) | HL(–) |
| LSTM | 0.92 | 0.89 | 0.90 | 0.0012 |
Experiment results of multi-label classification model.
| Code | Proportion (%) | Description | |
| 1 | 0 | 25.395 | Only sentiment expression, not involving topics. |
| 2 | 4 | 9.568 | Topic2 |
| 3 | 1 | 8.294 | Topic1 |
| 4 | 5 | 6.921 | Topic1 + Topic2 |
| 5 | 69 | 3.949 | Topic5 + Topic2 + Topic1 |
| 6 | 16 | 3.882 | Topic7 |
| 7 | 68 | 2.981 | Topic5 + Topic2 |
| 8 | 64 | 2.038 | Topic5 |
| 9 | 101 | 2.026 | Topic5 + Topic6 + Topic2 + Topic1 |
| 10 | 65 | 1.997 | Topic5 + Topic1 |
| 11 | 35 | 1.724 | Topic6 + Topic3 + Topic1 |
| 12 | 33 | 1.534 | Topic6 + Topic1 |
| 13 | 20 | 1.385 | Topic7 + Topic2 |
| 14 | 37 | 1.340 | Topic6 + Topic2 + Topic1 |
| 15 | 34 | 1.149 | Topic6 + Topic3 |
| 16 | 18 | 1.133 | Topic7 + Topic3 |
| 17 | 97 | 1.083 | Topic5 + Topic6 + Topic1 |
| 18 | 128 | 0.918 | Topic8 |
| 19 | 132 | 0.872 | Topic8 + Topic2 |
| 20 | 39 | 0.781 | Topic6 + Topic2 + Topic3 + Topic1 |
| 21 | 21 | 0.773 | Topic7 + Topic2 + Topic1 |
| 22 | 2 | 0.748 | Topic3 |
| 23 | 109 | 0.736 | Topic5 + Topic6 + Topic4 + Topic2 + Topic1 |
| 24 | 32 | 0.690 | Topic6 |
| 25 | 17 | 0.624 | Topic7 + Topic1 |
| 26 | 41 | 0.612 | Topic6 + Topic4 + Topic1 |
| 27 | 133 | 0.595 | Topic8 + Topic2 + Topic1 |
| 28 | 40 | 0.583 | Topic6 + Topic4 |
| 29 | 197 | 0.546 | Topic8 + Topic5 + Topic2 + Topic1 |
| 30 | 129 | 0.504 | Topic8 + Topic1 |
| – | – | – | Those accounting for <0.5% are omitted. |
FIGURE 7The experiment result of multi-topic sentiment classification.