The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
How Much can you Trust Online Information? Cues for Perceived Trustworthiness of Consumer-generated Online Information
Abstract
Consumers increasingly rely on the Internet to obtain product information and advice from other consumers. However, since the information available on the Internet is easily manipulated, they have to seek cues for the trustworthiness of the online information. The present study proposes and tests the effects on perceived trust of online information and subsequent attitude of (1) perceived strong vs. weak social relationships among net pals and (2) positive vs. negative messages. The moderating effects of credence vs. experience goods are also examined in the research. Results show that, for experience goods, either positive or negative online messages will be perceived as credible as long as the messages are posted by those perceived to have close social relationships. On the other hand, for credence goods, negative online messages are perceived to be more credible than positive online messages when the messages are posted by those perceived to have close social relationships. Results also show the main effect of positive/negative messages on credibility of information, as well as that the effect of credibility of information on product attitude is weaker in the credence goods group than in the experience goods group.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K. P., Walsh, G., & Gremler, D. D. (2004) · Journal of Interactive Marketing · doi:10.1002/dir.10073 · Cited by 5,916
Muniz, A. M., & O'Guinn, T. C. (2001) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/319618 · Cited by 3,998
Free competition and the optimal amount of fraud
Darby, M. R., & Karni, E. (1973) · The Journal of Law and Economics · doi:10.1086/466756 · Cited by 3,947 · cited 2×
“Products and services can be divided into three categories: search, experience, and credence goods (Darby and Karni 1973; Nelson 1970).”
BackgroundNegativity and extremity biases in impression formation: A review of explanations.
Skowronski, J. J., & Carlston, D. E. (1989) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.105.1.131 · Cited by 1,550 · cited 1×
“…that consumers typically give greater weight to negative information than to equally extreme but positive information (Fiske 1992; Kanouse and Hanson 1972; Skowronski and Carlston 1989), so it is likely that consumers will trust online negative eWOM information more than positive information.”
BackgroundOnline peer and editorial recommendations, trust and choice in virtual markets
Smith, D., Menon, S., & Sivakumar, K. (2005) · Journal of Interactive Marketing · doi:10.1002/dir.20041 · Cited by 683
Cited by
Filieri, R. (2015) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.11.006 · Cited by 1,083
A study of the impact of social media on consumers
Hajli, M. N. (2014) · International Journal of Market Research · doi:10.2501/ijmr-2014-025 · Cited by 854
A meta-analysis of online trust relationships in e-commerce.
Kim, Y., & Peterson, R. A. (2017) · Journal of Interactive Marketing · doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2017.01.001 · Cited by 541
The effect of characteristics of source credibility on consumer behaviour: A meta-analysis
Ismagilova, E., Slade, E., Rana, N. P., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2020) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.01.005 · Cited by 504
eWOM source credibility, perceived risk and food product customer’s information adoption
Hussain, S., Ahmed, W., Jafar, R. M. S., Rabnawaz, A., & Jianzhou, Y. (2017) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.09.034 · Cited by 337
Ou, C.-C., Chen, K.-L., Tseng, W.-K., & Lin, Y.-Y. (2022) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su14041941 · Cited by 38
Kim, J., Leung, X. Y., & McKneely, B. (2023) · Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal · doi:10.1108/jfmm-05-2021-0126 · Cited by 26
Metadata
- Authors
- Pan, L.-Y., & Chiou, J.-S.
- Venue
- Journal of Interactive Marketing
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2011-05
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 67-74
- ISSN
- 1094-9968 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-6653
- OpenAlex
- W2046828035
- Cited by
- 321
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 37.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.