Corpus ID: 14676739

Deceptive Reviews : The Influential Tail

@inproceedings{Simester2013DeceptiveR,
  title={Deceptive Reviews : The Influential Tail},
  author={D. Simester},
  year={2013}
}
Research in the psycholinguistics literature has identified linguistic cues indicating when a message is more likely to be deceptive and we find that the textual comments in the reviews without prior transactions exhibit many of these characteristics. In contrast, these reviews are less likely to contain expressions describing the fit or feel of the items, which can generally only be assessed by physical inspection of the items. 

Figures and Tables from this paper

Using supervised learning to classify authentic and fake online reviews
Before making a purchase, users are increasingly inclined to browse online reviews that are posted to share post-purchase experiences of products and services. However, not all reviews areExpand
A theoretical framework to identify authentic online reviews
TLDR
The three textual characteristics offered useful insights to identify authentic online reviews from manipulative ones and the differences between authentic and manipulative reviews in terms of comprehensibility and informativeness were more conspicuous for negative entries. Expand
Understanding the process of writing fake online reviews
TLDR
Results indicate that the process of writing fake reviews commences with extensive information gathering via common review websites such as TripAdvisor as well as search engines such as Google. Expand
Identifying ground truth in opinion spam: an empirical survey based on review psychology
TLDR
This survey of state-of-the-art truth by considering two classical roles, e.g., crowdsourcing and expert spammers, may shed light on new angles that can be used to understand review spam and to improve the performance of any anti-spam platforms. Expand
Impact of reviewer social interaction on online consumer review fraud detection
TLDR
A user’s social interaction on a digital platform such as Yelp is equally important in evaluating the user as social interaction is in real life, and the characteristics that lead to fraud can be intuitively captured. Expand
Distinguishing between authentic and fictitious user-generated hotel reviews
TLDR
A sequential forward feature selection approach was adopted to identify the top five features that aid the classification of authentic and fictitious reviews, which include the use of nouns, articles, function words, punctuations, and in particular, exclamation points. Expand
Discovering shilling groups in a real e-commerce platform
TLDR
An unsupervised ranking method based on principal component analysis (PCA) is presented for identifying shilling groups from real users on Amazon.cn, and as indicated by the behavior analysis, the proposed method has successfully identified a number of shillings groups onAmazon.cn. Expand
False-Name-Proof Voting with Costs Over Two Alternatives
In open, anonymous settings such as the Internet, agents can participate in a mechanism multiple times under different identities. A mechanism is false-name-proof if no agent ever benefits fromExpand

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 51 REFERENCES
Lying Words: Predicting Deception from Linguistic Styles
TLDR
The current project investigated the features of linguistic style that distinguish between true and false stories, and found that liars showed lower cognitive complexity, used fewer self-references and other- References, and used more negative emotion words than truth-tellers. Expand
Comparison of Deceptive and Truthful Travel Reviews
TLDR
Using findings from deception theory, a study was conducted to compare the language structure of deceptive and truthful hotel reviews, suggesting that it might be difficult to distinguish between deception and truthful reviews based on structural properties. Expand
What Lies Beneath: The Linguistic Traces of Deception in Online Dating Profiles
This article investigates whether deceptions in online dating profiles correlate with changes in the way daters write about themselves in the free-text portion of the profile, and whether theseExpand
Detecting Deception through Linguistic Analysis
TLDR
Preliminary tests of 16 linguistic features that can be automated to return assessments of the likely truthful or deceptiveness of a piece of text demonstrate that deceivers do utilize language differently than truth tellers and that combinations of cues can improve the ability to predict which texts may contain deception. Expand
Cues to deception.
TLDR
Results show that in some ways, liars are less forthcoming than truth tellers, and they tell less compelling tales, and their stories include fewer ordinary imperfections and unusual contents. Expand
Are User Reviews Systematically Manipulated? Evidence from the Helpfulness Ratings
There is a lot of evidence that people place great weight on online user reviews. And yet there are many reports of mischief in reviews, such as the January 2009 incident with a Belkin managerExpand
Brilliant but cruel: Perceptions of negative evaluators.
Abstract Using edited excerpts from actual negative and positive book reviews, this research examined the hypothesis that negative evaluators of intellectual products will be perceived as moreExpand
Finding Deceptive Opinion Spam by Any Stretch of the Imagination
TLDR
This work develops and compares three approaches to detecting deceptive opinion spam, and develops a classifier that is nearly 90% accurate on the authors' gold-standard opinion spam dataset, and reveals a relationship between deceptive opinions and imaginative writing. Expand
A Longitudinal Analysis of Language Behavior of Deception in E-mail
TLDR
The preliminary results showed that some cues to deception change over time, while others do not, and the explanation for the lack of change in the latter cases is provided. Expand
Accuracy of Deception Judgments
  • C. F. Bond, B. Depaulo
  • Psychology, Medicine
  • Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc
  • 2006
TLDR
It is proposed that people judge others' deceptions more harshly than their own and that this double standard in evaluating deceit can explain much of the accumulated literature. Expand
...
1
2
3
4
5
...