skip to main content
10.1145/2187836.2187864acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageswwwConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Estimating the prevalence of deception in online review communities

Published:16 April 2012Publication History

ABSTRACT

Consumers' purchase decisions are increasingly influenced by user-generated online reviews. Accordingly, there has been growing concern about the potential for posting deceptive opinion spam---fictitious reviews that have been deliberately written to sound authentic, to deceive the reader. But while this practice has received considerable public attention and concern, relatively little is known about the actual prevalence, or rate, of deception in online review communities, and less still about the factors that influence it.

We propose a generative model of deception which, in conjunction with a deception classifier, we use to explore the prevalence of deception in six popular online review communities: Expedia, Hotels.com, Orbitz, Priceline, TripAdvisor, and Yelp. We additionally propose a theoretical model of online reviews based on economic signaling theory, in which consumer reviews diminish the inherent information asymmetry between consumers and producers, by acting as a signal to a product's true, unknown quality. We find that deceptive opinion spam is a growing problem overall, but with different growth rates across communities. These rates, we argue, are driven by the different signaling costs associated with deception for each review community, e.g., posting requirements. When measures are taken to increase signaling cost, e.g., filtering reviews written by first-time reviewers, deception prevalence is effectively reduced.

References

  1. C. Bond and B. DePaulo. Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(3):214, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. C.-C. Chang and C.-J. Lin. LIBSVM: A library for support vector machines. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology, 2:27:1--27:27, 2011. Software available at http://www.csie.ntu.edu.tw/ cjlin/libsvm. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Cone. 2011 Online Influence Trend Tracker. Online: http://www.coneinc.com/negative-reviews-online-reverse-purchase-decisions, August 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. B. DePaulo, D. Kashy, S. Kirkendol, M. Wyer, and J. Epstein. Lying in everyday life. Journal of personality and social psychology, 70(5):979, 1996.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. J. Hancock. Digital Deception: The Practice of Lying in the Digital Age. Deception: Methods, Contexts and Consequences, pages 109--120, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. J. Hancock, J. Thom-Santelli, and T. Ritchie. Deception and design: The impact of communication technology on lying behavior. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, pages 129--134. ACM, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. N. Hu, L. Liu, and J. Zhang. Do online reviews affect product sales? The role of reviewer characteristics and temporal effects. Information Technology and Management, 9(3):201--214, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. N. Jindal and B. Liu. Opinion spam and analysis. In Proceedings of the international conference on Web search and web data mining, pages 219--230. ACM, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. W. Johnson, J. Gastwirth, and L. Pearson. Screening without a "gold standard": The Hui-Walter paradigm revisited. American Journal of Epidemiology, 153(9):921, 2001.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. L. Joseph, T. Gyorkos, and L. Coupal. Bayesian estimation of disease prevalence and the parameters of diagnostic tests in the absence of a gold standard. American Journal of Epidemiology, 141(3):263, 1995.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. E. Lim, V. Nguyen, N. Jindal, B. Liu, and H. Lauw. Detecting product review spammers using rating behaviors. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM international conference on Information and knowledge management, pages 939--948. ACM, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. D. Meyer. Fake reviews prompt belkin apology. http://news.cnet.com/8301--1001_3--10145399--92.html, Jan. 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. R. Mihalcea and C. Strapparava. The lie detector: Explorations in the automatic recognition of deceptive language. In Proceedings of the ACL-IJCNLP 2009 Conference Short Papers, pages 309--312. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. C. Miller. Company settles case of reviews it faked. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/15/technology/internet/15lift.html, July 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. M. Ott, Y. Choi, C. Cardie, and J. Hancock. Finding deceptive opinion spam by any stretch of the imagination. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies-Volume 1, pages 309--319. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. B. Page. Amazon withdraws ebook explaining how to manipulate its sales rankings. http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/jan/05/amazon-ebook-manipulate-kindle-rankings, Jan. 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. K. Serota, T. Levine, and F. Boster. The prevalence of lying in America: Three studies of self-reported lies. Human Communication Research, 36(1):2--25, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. M. Spence. Job market signaling. The quarterly journal of Economics, 87(3):355, 1973.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. D. Streitfeld. In a race to out-rave, 5-star web reviews go for $5. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/20/technology/finding-fake-reviews-online.html, Aug. 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. D. Streitfeld. For $2 a star, an online retailer gets 5-star product reviews. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/27/technology/for-2-a-star-a-retailer-gets-5-star-reviews.html, Jan. 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. A. Topping. Historian Orlando Figes agrees to pay damages for fake reviews. http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/jul/16/orlando-figes-fake-amazon-reviews, July 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. A. Vrij. Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities. Wiley-Interscience, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. K. Yoo and U. Gretzel. Comparison of Deceptive and Truthful Travel Reviews. Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2009, pages 37--47, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Estimating the prevalence of deception in online review communities

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Other conferences
          WWW '12: Proceedings of the 21st international conference on World Wide Web
          April 2012
          1078 pages
          ISBN:9781450312295
          DOI:10.1145/2187836

          Copyright © 2012 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 16 April 2012

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          Overall Acceptance Rate1,899of8,196submissions,23%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader