外文翻译---促使消费者网上评价产品的原因分析.docx

附录三：外文文献译文标题：促使消费者网上评价产品的原因分析基于在线电影评论由来的研究资料来源：消费者报告，2006 作者：Chrysanthos Dellarocas and Ritu Narayan 1、 简介近年来，在线产品评价的论坛对于消费者在产品选择上所产生的影响已与日俱增。因此，有些公司利用这种现象，积极努力通过各渠道来使消费者在网上关注他们的产品（Godes等，2005）。然而，有趣的是，即使控制产品销售量的变化，仍然出现消费者对于在网上参与不同产品的讨论的倾向的大幅度变动。因此，关于消费者参与在线评论激发消费成为了一个新兴的、具有理论和实践意义的研究。最近，关于网上评论的研究主要集中于评估用户评论内容和产品销售（2006年Chevalier和Mayzlin，2004；Senecal和Nantel，2006）之间的关系。到目前为止，很少有人研究人们参与在线产品评论的影响因素的研究，我们唯一所知道的（Hennig-Thurau等，2004）相关研究是采用了传统的调查方法，同时要求受访者要明确地报告他们参与在线评价的动机。通过寻找产品在特定前提下的在线评论，我们的工作为这方面的研究开辟了新的方向。在Hennig-Thurau等的关于是什么促使消费者在网上评论的研究后，我们的研究着重于了解什么特定产品属性可以解释消费者平均消费倾向的变化，使人们发布有关于给定类别中个别商品的在线评价。此外，在关于这一主题的最早的文献调查的基础上，我们的工作也参考了从互联网上收集的辅助数据，并作出了以实际行为为基础的观察推论。最后，我们的研究特别注重网上媒介的一些特别的属性，如之前发布的意见的知名度和持久性等，对后来的访问者参与一个产品在线评价意愿的影响。2、 理论框架我们的研究致力于以前关于口碑（WOM）交流的动机和公共物品行为经济学理论的贡献的研究。（1）口碑交流理论以前关于口碑交流的动机和来源的文献包括，以调查为基础的关于离线口碑的来源的研究（迪希特，1966；孙达拉姆等，1998），以及最近少数关于司机网上审查论坛的贡献的研究（Hennig-Thurau等，2004）。Ditche关于口碑交流的动机的开创性文章提出了存在的四个主要的动机类别：产品参与，自我参与，其他参与，和消息参与（Ditcher，1966）。虽然后来的研究（恩格尔等，1993；孙达拉姆等，1998）定义了口碑细化的动机，但其中大部分与原先Ditcher建议的类别相对应。（2）公共物品的理论贡献在线产品评论代表的是经济学家所说的公共利益实例：人们花费时间和努力在他们的个人捐助者，一旦为社会所知晓，其利益就会延伸到整个社会。经济理论所预言的，当很多人共享公共物品的使用，有一个过度使用（“公地悲剧”）的激励，而当人们共享的义务是为他们提供时，他们往往供应不足。行为经济学的一个相当长的论段试图解释司机对社会的公益贡献。（贝克尔，1974；伯恩海姆，1986；Andreoni，1989）。这些文献提供了几点启示，也同样适用于在线产品评论。行为经济学文献的一个重要贡献是区分完全和非完全利他动机的一种方法。这种方法是基于对慈善货物的贡献“挤出效应”的存在或缺乏（艾布拉姆斯和Schmitz，1978；Andreoni，1989）。挤出效应的描述情况下，如果第三方增加了自己的贡献从个人的利他主义的捐款往往会减少，它直接从纯粹的利他主义的定义如下：如果第三方（比如，政府）的步骤，使大的一个慈善组织捐款，来自个人的捐款将使该组织的原因与众不同。在我们设置的背景下，其他影迷已经发布了大量的网上评论后，挤出效应会转化为一个下降的倾向对于电影的网上评论。测试存在这样的效果，使我们能够区分的行为模式，否则将被归属到多个动机类别的可能动机。3、 假设借鉴口碑的动机，我们根据讨论的理论框架提出假设。列出的动机类别包括括号内的每个假说。如果我们提交的是接受，我们将在研讨会上将每一个假说都提出详细讨论。H1：发表网上评论倾向较高的，是消费者认为特别好或特别坏的电影。（产品的参与和关心他人）H2：在线审查一部电影的倾向与电影的营销量是正相关的。（留言介入）H3：在线审查一部电影的倾向是否积极与公众认为该影片质量的分歧量有关。（自我参与和关心他人）H4：在线审查一部电影的倾向与那部电影的感知的可用性是负相关的。（自我参与和关心他人）H5A：以前发布有关于同一部电影的评论与再次发布的倾向是负相关的。（关心他人）H5B：以前发布有关于同一部电影的评论数量与再次参与有关电影网上评论的倾向呈正相关。（自我参与和社会福利）需要注意的是H1 - H4与纯粹的利他主义和口碑的动机至少有一个其他理论相一致。因此，这些假说的实证支持，不允许我们绘制清晰的对在线产品审查捐款背后动机的结论。假设5a/5b可以帮助解决这个潜在的歧义。4、 数据集我们的数据集包括消费类和专业评论家张贴在雅虎的评论。电影关于美国在2002年期间发布的104部电影，每一部都有详细的生产数据和相同的电影厅每周框数据。它包括104部电影，1392评论家评论（平均13的电影评论）从46294个人用户中选出的（平均每部电影和1.4，用户的评论614的评论）用户评论。即使我们调整票房量的差异，数据集已经具有了尊重已经为不同电影作出贡献的消费者的评论的数量的实质性方差。这意味着在购买人口的平均消费倾向的变异评论网上不同的电影。5、 结论我们发现，采购人口的平均消费倾向对于评论在线电影有：（1）一个U形的关系与平均价的那部电影的评论；（2）与该影片的营销预算的正相关关系；（3）与专业评论之间的分歧水平的正相关关系那部电影；（4）与屏幕电影展的负相关关系；（5）与以前发布的评语数量相同的正相关关系。因此，我们找到了假设1，2，3，4和5b的支持。我们的研究结果拒绝利他主义/关注他人发布在线产品评论的主要动机的假设。一个我们的实证结果分的集体阅读，相反的，不是自我作为网上审查的贡献背后的主导力量的表达/自我确认的动机：消费者更容易评价非常好和非常糟糕的电影（因为消费者觉得这些电影触发强烈的感情表达的冲动），有争议的电影（因为那么他们的审查将予以更多其他消费者寻求减少他们对这些电影的不确定性），鲜为人知的电影（的关注，因为这可以让消费者展示其折衷主义和复杂性），和电影周围存在着他们认为有的很多网上的谣言（因为这意味着其他人更容易阅读评价，或仅仅是因为它的乐趣做，别人都这样做）。有趣的是，我们发现电影观众似乎更渴望评价那些广泛发布而且票房成绩不好的电影。即使我们控制所吸引人群的内在沟通习惯的差异，这一结果依然很显著。其结果是产生一个关于产品的“在线流言”的营销活动的有兴趣的影响，另一个有趣发现是，以前发布的大量评论使观众对同一部电影发表评论的倾向更大，即使过去有一定的量，增加额外的评语是不可能添加已经说过的一点。这是设计在线产品讨论社区的潜在影响的结果，因为它表明，从社会的角度来看，有可能会存在消费者参与在线评论的方式效率低下。浙江万里学院现代物流学院 大学生在线产品评价参与意向影响因素分析附录四：外文文献原文Title：What motivates consumers to review a product online？A study of the product-specific antecedents of online movie reviewMaterial Source：Consumer Reports, 2006 Author：Chrysanthos Dellarocas and Ritu Narayan 1. IntroductionIn recent years online product review forums have been exerting an increasingly powerful influence on consumer choice. Not surprisingly, several firms are becoming interested in leveraging this phenomenon, proactively trying to induce consumers to “spread the word” about their products online (Godes et al. 2005). Interestingly, however, even after one controls for the variance in sales volumes, there appears to be substantial variance in consumers propensity to discuss different products online. A deeper understanding of the forces that motivate consumers to write online reviews is, therefore, emerging as a question of both theoretical and practical significance.Most recent research on online reviews has focused on assessing the relationship between such user-generated content and product sales (Chevalier and Mayzlin 2006; Senecal and Nantel 2004). Little attention has, so far, been devoted to the antecedents of online product reviews. The only relevant study that we are aware of (Hennig-Thurau et al. 2004) uses a traditional survey methodology in which respondents were explicitly asked to report the motives behind their online communication habits. Our work adds to this emerging body of knowledge by looking at the product-specific antecedents of online product reviews. While Hennig-Thurau et al. look at what motivates consumers to post online reviews in general, our study focuses on understanding what product-specific attributes explain the variance in a purchasing populations average propensity to post online reviews about individual products of a given category (motion pictures). Furthermore, while most prior literature on this topic is based on surveys, our work uses secondary data collected from the Internet and draws inferences from observations of actual behavior. Finally, our study pays special attention to how some unique properties of the online medium, such as the visibility and persistence of previously posted comments, affect subsequent visitors willingness to review a product online. 2. Theoretical Framework Our study draws upon prior research on the motives of word-of-mouth (WOM) communication and upon behavioral economics theories of public goods contribution.(1)Theories of word-of-mouth (WOM) communication Prior literature on the motivations and antecedents of WOM communication consists of, predominantly survey-based, research on the antecedents of offline WOM (Dichter 1966, Sundaram et al. 1998), as well as a small number of recent studies on drivers of contribution to online review forums (Hennig-Thurau et al. 2004).Ditchers (1966) seminal article on WOM communication motives suggests the presence of four main motivational categories: product involvement, self involvement, other involvement, and message involvement. While later studies (Engel et al. 1993, Sundaram et al. 1998) identify finer-grained motives of WOM, most of these correspond to categories originally suggested by Dichter. We present a summary below. (2)Theories of public goods contribution Online product reviews represent an instance of what economists call a public good: they cost time and effort to their individual contributors but, once available, their benefit extends to the entire society. Economic theory predicts that when many people share the use of public goods, there is an incentive to overuse (“tragedy of the commons”), whereas when people share the obligation to provide them, they tend to undersupply. A sizeable literature in behavioral economics attempts to explain the drivers of public good contribution (see, for example, Becker 1974; Bernheim 1986; Andreoni 1989). This literature provides several insights that also apply to the context of online product reviews. An important contribution of the behavioral economics literature is a method for distinguishing between pure and impure altruistic motives. This method is based on the presence or absence of a “crowding-out effect” in the contribution of charitable goods (Abrams and Schmitz 1978; Andreoni 1989). The crowding-out effect describes situations where altruistic contributions from private individuals tend to diminish if a third-party increases its contributions; it follows directly from the definition of pure altruism: if a third party (say, the government) steps in and makes large donations to a charity organization, donations from private individuals will make less of a difference to that organizations causes. In the context of our setting, the crowding-out effect would translate to a decreased propensity to post online reviews for movies for which other moviegoers have already posted large numbers of online reviews. Testing for the presence of such an effect allows us to distinguish between the likely motives of patterns of behavior that would otherwise be attributable to multiple motivational categories.3. Hypotheses We develop our hypotheses by drawing upon the theoretical frameworks on the motives of WOM we discuss above. We list the motivational categories that are consistent with each hypothesis in brackets. If our submission is accepted we will provide a detailed discussion of each hypothesis at the workshop. H1: The propensity to post online reviews is higher for movies that are perceived by consumers to be exceptionally good or exceptionally bad. (Product involvement and concern for others) H2: The propensity to review a movie online is positively related to that movies marketing effort. (Message involvement) H3: The propensity to review a movie online is positively related to the amount of public disagreement about that movies quality. (Self involvement and concern for others) H4: The propensity to review a movie online is negatively related to that movies perceived availability. (Self involvement and concern for others) H5a: The propensity to post online reviews about a movie is negatively related to the number of previously posted reviews about the same movie. (Concern for others) H5b: The propensity to post online reviews about a movie is positively related to the number of previously posted reviews about the same movie. (Self involvement and social benefits) Note that H1-H4 are consistent with both pure altruism and at least one other theory of WOM motives. Therefore, empirical support for these hypotheses does not allow us to draw sharp conclusions regarding the motivations behind online product review contributions. Hypotheses 5a/5b can help resolve this potential ambiguity.4. Dataset Our data set consists of consumer and professional critic reviews posted on Yahoo! Movies for 104 movies that were released in the U.S. during 2002, together with detailed production and weekly box office data for the same movies. It consists of 104 movies, 1,392 critic reviews (an average of 13 reviews per movie), and 63,889 user reviews from 46,294 individual users (an average of 614 reviews per movie and 1.4 reviews per user). Even after we adjust for differences in box office volumes, the data set exhibits substantial variance with respect to the volume of consumer reviews that have been contributed for different movies. This implies variability in the purchasing populations average propensity to review different movies online.5. Conclusions We find that a purchasing populations average propensity to review a movie online has: (1) a U-shaped relationship with the average valence of that movies reviews; (2) a positive relationship with that movies marketing budget; (3) a positive relationship with the level of disagreement among professional reviews for that movie; (4) a negative relationship with the number of screens where the movie is exhibited; (5) a positive relationship with the volume of previously posted reviews for the same movie.We thus find support for Hypothesis 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5b. Our findings reject the hypothesis of altruism/concern for others as the primary motivation for posting online product reviews. A collective reading of our empirical findings points, instead, to self expression/self confirmation motives as being the dominant force behind online review contribution: consumers are more likely to review very good and very bad movies (because these movies trigger strong feelings that consumers feel the urge to express), controversial movies (because then their review will be read with more attention by other consumers who seek to