The development of China's new energy vehicle industry has been gradually transformed from past policy support to the survival of enterprises determined by the market, which forces the new energy vehicle industry to accelerate towards the market-oriented direction. We collected review data from online automotive forums and generated a corpus after pre-processing. Next, we extracted the statistical and topic semantic features of online reviews for new energy vehicles and clarified the quality evaluation indicators for online reviews. Then, the entropy weight-TOPSIS method was used to determine the indicators’ weights and assign values to the quality of online reviews. Finally, the quality scoring rules of online reviews were sorted out from multidimensional perspectives. The research results have shown that the statistical features and topic semantic features of online reviews on new energy vehicles can be used as evaluation indicators to construct a quality evaluation system. It was also found that the quality scores of lower-priced vehicle reviews tend to be consistent in different price groups, while the quality scores of mid-priced vehicle reviews are the most dispersed. The quality of online reviews varies significantly among other groups or models. The study results provide a simple criterion for consumers’ cognition of the value of online reviews. The results will enhance the ability of new energy vehicle companies to carry out online marketing with the help of online reviews and transform the purchase intention of potential consumers into actual purchase behavior.
AghsssakhaniNOhOGreggD, et al. (2021) Online review consistency matters. An elaboration likelihood model perspective. Information Systems Frontiers23: 1287–1301.
2.
BarbaraKDaleGGordonD (1997) Can humans detect errors in data? Impact of base rates, incentives, and goals. Mis Quarterly21(2): 169–194.
3.
BiswasBSenguptaPGangulyB (2021) Your reviews or mine? Exploring the determinants of “perceived helpfulness” of online reviews: A cross-cultural study. Electronic Markets32(2): 1–20.
4.
ChenCChangY (2018) What drives purchase intention on Airbnb? Perspectives of consumer reviews, information quality, and media richness. Telematics and Informatics35(5): 1512–1523.
5.
ChoiHLeonS (2020) An empirical investigation of online review helpfulness: A big data perspective. Decision Support Systems139(2/2): 113403.
6.
ChoiS (2020) Antecedents of YouTube UGC tourism information adoption: An extended approach to information adoption model. Journal of Tourism Management Research24(2): 681–708.
7.
ChongAKhongKMaT, et al. (2018) Analyzing key influences of tourists’ acceptance of online reviews in travel decisions. Internet Research28(12): 564–586.
8.
ChumberSHuberJGhezziP (2015) A methodology to analyze the quality of health information online： The example of diabetic neuropathy. Diabetes Educator41(1): 95–105.
9.
ElwaldaAErkanIRahmanM (2022) Understanding mobile users’ information adoption behavior: An extension of the information adoption model. Journal of Enterprise Information Management35(6): 1789–1811.
10.
ErkanIEvansC (2016) The influence of eWOM in social media on consumers’ purchase intentions: An extended approach to information adoption. Computers in Human Behavior61(2): 47–55.
11.
EysenbachGPowellJKussO, et al. (2002) Empirical studies assessing the quality of health information for consumers on the world wide web: A systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Association287(20): 2691–2700.
12.
FilieriR (2016) What makes an online consumer review trustworthy?Annals of Tourism Research58: 46–64.
13.
FresnedaJGefenD (2019) A semantic measure of online review helpfulness and the importance of message entropy. Decision Support Systems125(11/12): 113117.
14.
FurnerCZinkoRZhuZ (2018) Examining the role of mobile self-efficacy in the word-of-mouth/mobile product reviews relationship. International Journal of E-Services and Mobile Applications10(4): 40–60.
15.
GhasemaghaeiMEslamiPDealK, et al. (2018) Review length and sentiment as correlates of online review ratings. Internet Research28(3): 544–563.
16.
GobinathJGuptaD (2016) Online reviews: determining the perceived quality of information. In: 2016 International Conference on Advances in Computing, Communications and Informatics (ICACCI).
17.
HovlandCJanisIKelleyH (1954) Communication and persuasion: Psychological studies of opinion change. American Sociological Review19(3): 355–365.
18.
HuHKrishenA (2019) When is enough? Investigating product reviews and information overload from a consumer empowerment perspective. Journal of Business Research100: 27–37.
19.
IsmagilovaEDwivediYSladeE (2020) Perceived helpfulness of eWOM: Emotions, fairness and rationality. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services53(1): 101748.
20.
IsmagilovaESladeERanaN, et al. (2019) The effect of electronic word of mouth communications on intention to buy: A meta-analysis. Information Systems Frontiers22: 1203–1226.
21.
KimSLeeKShinS (2017) Effects of tourism information quality in social media on destination image formation: The case of Sina Weibo. Information Management54(6): 687–702.
22.
KuanKHuiKPrasarnphanichP (2015) What makes a review voted? An empirical investigation of review voting in online review systems. Journal of the Association for Information Systems16(1): 48–71.
23.
LeeMJeongMLeeJ (2017) Roles of negative emotions in customers’ perceived helpfulness of hotel reviews on a user-generated review website a text mining approach. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management29(2): 762–783.
24.
LiCCuiGHeY (2020) The role of explanations and metadiscourse in management responses to anger-reviews versus anxiety-reviews: The mediation of sense-making. International Journal of Hospitality Management89: 102560.
25.
LiangSSchuckertMLawR (2019) How to improve the stated helpfulness of hotel reviews? A multilevel approach. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management31(2): 953–977.
26.
LiuAWangYZhangJ (2023) The effects of linguistic coordination on the perceived quality of consumer reviews: A dual-process perspective. Journal of Interactive Marketing. 58(4): 361–379.
27.
MalikM (2020) Predicting users’ review helpfulness: The role of significant review and reviewer characteristics. Soft Computing24: 13913–13928.
28.
MalikMHussainA (2017) Helpfulness of product reviews as a function of discrete positive and negative emotions. Computers in Human Behavior73(563): 290–302.
29.
MousavizadehMKoohikamaliMSalehanM, et al. (2022) An investigation of peripheral and central cues of online customer review voting and helpfulness through the lens of elaboration likelihood model. Information Systems Frontiers24(1): 211–231.
30.
MudambiSSchuffD (2010) What makes a helpful review? A study of customer reviews on Amazon.com. MIS Quarterly34(1): 185–200.
31.
NelsonRToddPWixomB (2005) Antecedents of information and system quality: An empirical examination within the context of data warehousing. Journal of Management Information Systems21(4): 199–236.
32.
ParkS (2021) A study on consumers’ information adoption process of YouTube content: An extended approach to information adoption model. Journal of Distribution and Logistics8(2): 81–102.
33.
SalehanMKimD (2016) Predicting the performance of online consumer reviews: A sentiment mining approach to big data analytics. Decision Support Systems81(2): 30–40.
34.
SilbergWLundbergDMusacchioR (1997) Assessing， controlling， and assuring the quality of medical information on the internet. Journal of the American Medical Association277(15): 1244–1245.
35.
SrivastavaVKalroA (2019) Enhancing the helpfulness of online consumer reviews: The role of latent (content) factors. Journal of Interactive Marketing48(2): 33–50.
36.
TsaiCChenKHuY, et al. (2020) Improving text summarization of online hotel reviews with review helpfulness and sentiment. Tourism Management80(10): 104122.
37.
WangFKarimiS (2019) This product works well (for me): The impact of first-person singular pronouns on online review helpfulness. Journal of Business Research104(11): 283–294.
38.
WangRStrongD (1996) Beyond accuracy: What data quality means to data consumers. Journal of Management Information System12(4): 5–34.
39.
WangXLvTFanL (2022) New energy vehicle consumer demand mining research based on fusion topic model: A case in China. Sustainability14(6): 3316.
40.
WangXTangLKimE (2019) More than words: Do emotional content and linguistic style matching matter on restaurant review helpfulness?International Journal of Hospitality Management77: 438–447.
41.
WuCMaiFLiX (2021) The effect of content depth and deviation on online review helpfulness: Evidence from double-hurdle model. Information Management58(2): 103408.
42.
YanQZhouSWuS (2018) The influences of tourists’ emotions on the selection of electronic word-of-mouth platforms. Tourism Management66(4): 348–363.
43.
ZhangKZhaoSCheungC, et al. (2014) Examining the influence of online reviews on consumers’ decision-making: A heuristic–systematic model. Decision Support Systems67: 78–89.
44.
ZhouYYangSLiY, et al. (2020) Does the review deserve more helpfulness when its title resembles the content? Locating helpful reviews by text mining. Information Processing and Management57(2): 102179.
