Amplifying Consumers’ Voice: The Federal Trade Commission’s Report Fraud Website Redesign

References

• Aizer A (2007) Public health insurance, program take-up, and child health. Rev. Econom. Statist. 89(3):400–415.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Akerlof GA (1978) The economics of “tagging” as applied to the optimal income tax, welfare programs, and manpower planning. Amer. Econom. Rev. 68(1):8–19.Google Scholar
• Anderson KB (2019) Mass-Market Consumer Fraud in the United States: A 2017 Update (Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC).Google Scholar
• Anderson KB (2021) To whom do victims of mass-market consumer fraud complain? Working paper, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
• Anderson ET, Simester DI (2014) Reviews without a purchase: Low ratings, loyal customers, and deception. J. Marketing Res. 51(3):249–269.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Angrist JD, Pischke J-S (2009) Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist’s Companion (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bergstrom T, Blume L, Varian H (1986) On the private provision of public goods. J. Public Econom. 29(1):25–49.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chan KS, Mestelman S, Muller RA (2008) Voluntary provision of public goods. Plott CR, Smith VL, eds. Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, vol. 1 (Elsevier, Amsterdam), 831–835.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chaudhuri A (2011) Sustaining cooperation in laboratory public goods experiments: A selective survey of the literature. Experiment. Econom. 14:47–83.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Currie J (2006) The take-up of social benefits. Auerbach A, Card D, Quigley J, eds. Poverty, the Distribution of Income, and Public Policy (Russell Sage, New York), 80–148.Google Scholar
• DeLiema M, Witt P (2021) Mixed methods analysis of consumer fraud reports of the Social Security Administration impostor scam. Working paper, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
• DeLiema M, Witt P (2023) Profiling consumers who reported mass marketing scams: Demographic characteristics and emotional sentiments associated with victimization. Security J., ePub ahead of print September 28, https://doi.org/10.1057/s41284-023-00401-5.Crossref, Google Scholar
• DeLiema M, Shadel D, Pak K (2020) Profiling victims of investment fraud: Mindsets and risky behaviors. J. Consumer Res. 46(5):904–914.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dukes A, Zhu Y (2019) Why customer service frustrates consumers: Using a tiered organizational structure to exploit hassle costs. Marketing Sci. 38(3):500–515.Link, Google Scholar
• Ebenstein A, Stange K (2010) Does inconvenience explain low take-up? Evidence from unemployment insurance. J. Policy Anal. Management 29(1):111–136.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Federal Trade Commission (2021a) Curbing COVID cons: Warning consumers about pandemic frauds, scams, and swindles. Congressional testimony, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
• Federal Trade Commission (2021b) Serving communities of color. Staff report, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
• Federal Trade Commission (2023) New FTC data show consumers reported losing nearly $8.8 billion to scams in 2022. Staff report, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
• Fischbacher U, Gächter S (2010) Social preferences, beliefs, and the dynamics of free riding in public goods experiments. Amer. Econom. Rev. 100(1):541–556.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Foote A, Grosz M, Rennane S (2019) The effect of lower transaction costs on social security disability insurance application rates and participation. J. Policy Anal. Management 38(1):99–123.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fradkin A, Holtz D (2023) Do incentives to review help the market? Evidence from a field experiment on Airbnb. Marketing Sci. 42(5):853–865.Link, Google Scholar
• Gächter S, Nosenzo D, Renner E, Sefton M (2010) Sequential vs. simultaneous contributions to public goods: Experimental evidence. J. Public Econom. 94(7–8):515–522.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gans JS, Goldfarb A, Lederman M (2021) Exit, tweets, and loyalty. Amer. Econom. J. Microeconomics 13(2):68–112.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Grootendorst M (2022) BERTopic: Neural topic modeling with a class-based TF-IDF procedure. Preprint, submitted March 11, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2203.05794.Google Scholar
• Grosz M, Raval D (2022) Fraud across borders. Working paper, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
• Hausman C, Rapson DS (2018) Regression discontinuity in time: Considerations for empirical applications. Annual Rev. Resource Econom. 10(1):533–552.Google Scholar
• He S, Hollenbeck B, Proserpio D (2022) The market for fake reviews. Marketing Sci. 41(5):896–921.Link, Google Scholar
• Hirschman AO (1972) Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Imbens GW, Rubin DB (1997) Estimating outcome distributions for compliers in instrumental variables models. Rev. Econom. Stud. 64(4):555–574.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jin GZ, Leslie P (2003) The effect of information on product quality: Evidence from restaurant hygiene grade cards. Quart. J. Econom. 118(2):409–451.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kaufmann D (2021) Community Advocate Center connects more people to the FTC. Federal Trade Commission press release, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
• Kleven HJ, Kopczuk W (2011) Transfer program complexity and the take-up of social benefits. Amer. Econom. J. Econom. Policy 3(1):54–90.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kopczuk W, Pop-Eleches C (2007) Electronic filing, tax preparers and participation in the Earned Income Tax Credit. J. Public Econom. 91(7–8):1351–1367.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lewis G, Zervas G (2020) The supply and demand effects of review platforms. Working paper, Boston University, Boston.Google Scholar
• Luca M (2011) Reviews, reputation, and revenue: The case of Yelp.com. Working paper, Harvard Business School, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Luca M, Zervas G (2016) Fake it till you make it: Reputation, competition, and Yelp review fraud. Management Sci. 62(12):3412–3427.Link, Google Scholar
• Luguri J, Strahilevitz LJ (2021) Shining a light on dark patterns. J. Legal Anal. 13(1):43–109.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mayzlin D, Dover Y, Chevalier JA (2014) Promotional reviews: An empirical investigation of online review manipulation. Amer. Econom. Rev. 104(8):2421–2455.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nichols AL, Zeckhauser RJ (1982) Targeting transfers through restrictions on recipients. Amer. Econom. Rev. 72(2):372–377.Google Scholar
• Nosko C, Tadelis S (2015) The limits of reputation in platform markets: An empirical analysis and field experiment. NBER working paper, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Parsons DO (1991) Self-screening in targeted public transfer programs. J. Political Econom. 99(4):859–876.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pei Z, Lee DS, Card D, Weber A (2022) Local polynomial order in regression discontinuity designs. J. Bus. Econom. Statist. 40(3):1259–1267.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Raval D (2020a) Which communities complain to policymakers? Evidence from Consumer Sentinel. Econom. Inquiry 58(4):1628–1642.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Raval D (2020b) Whose voice do we hear in the marketplace? Evidence from consumer complaining behavior. Marketing Sci. 39(1):168–187.Link, Google Scholar
• Raval D (2021) Who is victimized by fraud? Evidence from consumer protection cases. J. Consumer Policy 44:43–72.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Raval D (2024) Do bad business get good reviews? Evidence across several online review platforms. Working paper, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
• Tadelis S, Zettelmeyer F (2015) Information disclosure as a matching mechanism: Theory and evidence from a field experiment. Amer. Econom. Rev. 105(2):886–905.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Voicu I (2018) Using first name information to improve race and ethnicity classification. Statist. Public Policy 5(1):1–13.Crossref, Google Scholar