Learning from Online Social Ties

References

• Alba JW, Hutchinson JW (1987) Dimensions of consumer expertise. J. Consumer Res. 13(4):411–454.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Albert JH, Chib S (1993) Bayesian analysis of binary and polychotomous response data. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 88(422):669–679.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Anzai Y, Simon HA (1979) The theory of learning by doing. Psych. Rev. 86(2):124–140.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bollinger B, Gillingham K (2012) Peer effects in the diffusion of solar photovoltaic panels. Marketing Sci. 31(6):900–912.Link, Google Scholar
• Borgatti SP, Cross R (2003) A relational view of information seeking and learning in social networks. Management Sci. 49(4):432–445.Link, Google Scholar
• Boser BE, Guyon IM, Vapnik VN (1992) A training algorithm for optimal margin classifiers. Proc. Fifth Annual Workshop Comput. Learning Theory (ACM, New York), 144–152.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brooks SP, Gelman A (1998) General methods for monitoring convergence of iterative simulations. J. Comput. Graphical Statist. 7(4): 434–455.Google Scholar
• Brown JJ, Reingen PH (1987) Social ties and word-of-mouth referral behavior. J. Consumer Res. 14(3):350–362.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burt R (1995) Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Chen Y, Wang Q, Xie J (2011) Online social interactions: A natural experiment on word of mouth versus observational learning. J. Marketing Res. 48(2):238–254.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chevalier J, Mayzlin D (2006) The effect of word of mouth on sales: Online book reviews. J. Marketing Res. 43(3):345–354.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chintagunta PK, Gopinath S, Venkataraman S (2010) The effects of online user reviews on movie box office performance: Accounting for sequential rollout and aggregation across local markets. Marketing Sci. 29(5):944–957.Link, Google Scholar
• Clemons E, Gao G, Hitt L (2006) When online reviews meet hyperdifferentiation: A study of the craft beer industry. J. Management Inform. Systems 23(2):149–171.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Collingwood L, Wilkerson J (2012) Tradeoffs in accuracy and efficiency in supervised learning methods. J. Inform. Tech. Politics 9(3):298–318.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cortes C, Vapnik V (1995) Support-vector networks. Machine Learning 20(3):273–297.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dellarocas C, Zhang X, Awad NF (2007) Exploring the value of online product reviews in forecasting sales: The case of motion pictures. J. Interactive Marketing 21(4):23–45.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Du R, Kamakura W (2011) Measuring contagion in the diffusion of consumer packaged goods. J. Marketing Res. 39(2):28–47.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Duan W, Gu B, Whinston AB (2008) The dynamics of online word-of-mouth and product sales–an empirical investigation of the movie industry. J. Retailing 84(2):233–242.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ebbes P (2004) Latent instrumental variables: A new method to solve endogeneity in marketing and economics. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.Google Scholar
• Ebbes P, Wedel M, Bockenholt U, Steerneman T (2005) Solving and testing for regressor-error (in)dependence when no instrumental variables are available: With new evidence for the effect of education on income. Quant. Marketing Econom. 3(4):365–392.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Edwards Y, Allenby G (2003) Multivariate analysis of multiple response data. J. Marketing Res. 40(3):365–392.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Foster AD, Rosenzweig MR (1995) Learning by doing and learning from others: Human capital and technical change in agriculture. J. Political Econom. 103(6):1176–1209.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gelfand AE, Smith AFM (1990) Sampling-based approaches to calculating marginal densities. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 85(410):398–409.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gelman A, Rubin D (1992) Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences. Statist. Sci. 7(4):457–472.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Godes D, Mayzlin D (2004) Using online conversations to study word-of-mouth communication. Marketing Sci. 23(4):545–560.Link, Google Scholar
• Godes D, Silva J (2012) Dynamics of online opinion. Marketing Sci. 31(3):448–473.Link, Google Scholar
• Goettler R, Clay K (2011) Tariff choice with consumer learning and switching costs. J. Marketing Res. 48(4):633–652.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Granka LA, Joachims T, Gay G (2004) Eye-tracking analysis of user behavior in WWW search. Proc. 27th Annual Internat. ACM SIGIR Conf. Res. Development Inform. Retrieval (ACM, New York), 478–479.Google Scholar
• Granovetter MS (1973) The strength of weak ties. Amer. J. Sociol. 78(6): 1360–1380.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hartmann W, Manchanda P, Nair H, Bothner M, Dodds P, Godes D, Hosanagar K, Tucker C (2008) Modeling social interactions: Identification, empirical methods and policy implications. Marketing Lett. 19(3/4):287–304.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hsu CW, Chang CC, Lin CJ (2003) A practical guide to support vector classification. Working paper, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.Google Scholar
• Johnson EJ, Bellman S, Lohse GL (2003) Cognitive lock-in and the power law of practice. J. Marketing 67(2):62–75.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jurka TP, Collingwood L, Boydstun AE, Grossman E, van Atteveldt W (2013) RTextTools: A supervised learning package for text classification. R Journal 5(1):6–12.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Krackhardt D (1992) The strength of strong ties: The importance of philos in organizations. Nohria N, Eccles R, eds. Networks and Organizations: Structure, Form, and Action (Harvard Business School Press, Boston), 216–239.Google Scholar
• Levin DZ, Cross R (2004) The strength of weak ties you can trust: The mediating role of trust in effective knowledge transfer. Management Sci. 50(11):1477–1490.Link, Google Scholar
• Li X, Hitt LM (2008) Self-selection and information role of online product reviews. Inform. Systems Res. 19(4):456–474.Link, Google Scholar
• Lin N, Ensel WM, Vaughn JC (1981) Social resources and strength of ties: Structural factors in occupational status attainment. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 46(4):393–405.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Liu Y (2006) Word of mouth for movies: Its dynamics and impact on box office revenue. J. Marketing 70(3):74–89.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McCulloch R, Rossi P (1994) An exact likelihood analysis of the multinomial probit model. J. Econometrics 64(1–2):207–240.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McPherson M, Smith-Lovin L, Cook JM (2001) Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Rev. Sociol. 27:415–444.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Miravete E (2003) Choosing the wrong calling plan? Ignorance and learning. Amer. Econom. Rev. 93(1):297–310.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Moe WW, Schweidel DA (2012) Online product opinions: Incidence, evaluation, and evolution. Marketing Sci. 31(3):372–386.Link, Google Scholar
• Moe WW, Trusov M (2011) The value of social dynamics in online product ratings forums. J. Marketing Res. 48(3):444–456.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Morahan-Martin JM (2004) How Internet users find, evaluate, and use online health information: A cross-cultural review. Cyberpsych. Behav. 7(5):497–510.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nair HS, Manchanda P, Bhatia T (2010) Asymmetric social interactions in physician prescription behavior: The role of opinion leaders. J. Marketing Res. 47(5):883–895.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Newell A, Rosenbloom P (1981) Mechanisms of skill acquisition and the law of practice. Anderson JR, ed. Cognitive Skills and Their Acquisition (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ), 1–55.Google Scholar
• Nielson J (2006) The 90-9-1 rule for participation inequality in social media and online communities. Accessed April 16, 2018, https://www.nngroup.com/articles/participation-inequality/.Google Scholar
• Nokes TJ, Ohlsson S (2005) Comparing multiple paths to mastery: What is learned? Cognitive Sci. 29(5):769–796.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Oestreicher-Singer G, Sundararajan A (2012) The visible hand? Demand effects of recommendation networks in electronic markets. Management Sci. 58(11):1963–1981.Link, Google Scholar
• Rossi PE, Gilula Z, Allenby GM (2001) Overcoming scale usage heterogeneity: A Bayesian hierarchical approach. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 96(453):20–31.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rutz OJ, Bucklin RE, Sonnier GP (2012) A latent instrumental variables approach to modeling keyword conversion in paid search advertising. J. Marketing Res. 49(3):306–319.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schlosser AE (2005) Posting versus lurking: Communicating in a multiple audience context. J. Consumer Res. 32(2):260–265.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shriver S, Nair H, Hofstetter R (2013) Social ties and user-generated content: Evidence from an online social network. Management Sci. 59(6):1425–1443.Link, Google Scholar
• Spiegelhalter D, Best N, Carlin B, Van Der Linde A (2002) Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. J. Roy. Statist. Soc.: Ser. B (Statist. Methodology) 64(4):583–639.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sun M (2012) How does variance of product ratings matter? Management Sci. 58(4):696–707.Link, Google Scholar
• Sun N, Rau PPL, Ma L (2014) Understanding lurkers in online communities: A literature review. Comput. Human Behav. 38:110–117.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tanner MA, Wong WH (1987) The calculation of posterior distributions by data augmentation. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 82(398): 528–540.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Toubia O, Stephen A (2013) Intrinsic versus image-related motivations in social media: Why do people contribute content to Twitter? Marketing Sci. 32(3):365–367.Link, Google Scholar
• Wu F, Huberman BA (2008) How public opinion forms. Internet Network Econom. 5385:334–341.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ying Y, Feinberg F, Wedel M (2006) Leveraging missing ratings to improve online recommendation systems. J. Marketing Res. 43(3):355–365.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zhang J, Wedel M, Pieters R (2009) Sales effects of attention to feature advertisements: A Bayesian mediation analysis. J. Marketing Res. 46(5):669–681.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zhao Y, Yang S, Narayan V, Zhao Y (2013) Modeling consumer learning from online product reviews. Marketing Sci. 32(1):153–169.Link, Google Scholar