Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 755

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Following Celebrities’ Tweets About Brands: The Impact of Twitter-Based Electronic Word-of-Mouth on Consumers’ Source Credibility Perception, Buying Intention, and Social Identification With Celebrities

Jin, Seung-A Annie, Phua, Joe·2014·Journal of Advertising
DOI 10.1080/00913367.2013.827606
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Two experiments examined the impact of Twitter followers, electronic word-of-mouth (eWoM) valence, and celebrity type (prosocial versus antisocial) on consumer behavior in Twitter-based marketing communication, applying social capital theory, social identity theory, source credibility, and extant literature on eWoM. Experiment 1 demonstrated the main effect of number of followers on source credibility, and the interaction effect between eWoM valence and number of followers on product involvement, buying intention, and intention to pass along eWoM. Experiment 2 revealed the interaction effect of celebrity type and number of followers on social identification with the celebrity as well as the mediating effect of social identification.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/00913367.2013.827606

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 13 references

Research works printed but not linked: 55

  1. Amos Clinton, 2008, International Journal of Advertising: Quarterly Review of Marketing Communications, 27, 209, 10.1080/02650487.2008.11073052 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1080/08838159609364370 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Berthon PierreR., 2008, California Management Review, 50, 6, 10.2307/41166454 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Bourdieu Pierre, 1986, Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, 241
  5. Bukowski WilliamM., 1989, Peer Relationships in Child Development, 15
  6. 10.2753/JOA0091-3367400106 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Cendrowski Scott, 2012, CNN Money
  8. Cha Meeyoung, 2010, Proceedings of the Fourth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, 10
  9. Chen Yubo, 2011, Journal of Interactive Marketing, 25, 85, 10.1016/j.intmar.2011.01.003 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Coleman JamesS., 1988, American Journal of Sociology, 40, S95, 10.1086/228943 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Erdogan, 2000, International Journal of Advertising, 19, 25, 10.1080/02650487.2000.11104782 · DOI
  12. Tagg Stephen, 2001, Journal of Advertising Research, 41, 39, 10.2501/JAR-41-3-39-48 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Fraser BensonP., 2002, Mass Communication and Society, 5, 183, 10.1207/S15327825MCS0502_5 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Granovetter MarkS., 1973, American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360, 10.1086/225469 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Grossman Lev, 2009, Time Magazine Online Edition
  16. Hampp Andrew, 2011, Advertising Age
  17. Hargittai Eszter, 2011, New Media and Society, 13, 824, 10.1177/1461444811405805 · DOI
  18. Herr PaulM., 1991, Journal of Consumer Research, 17, 454, 10.1086/208570 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Holzwarth Martin, 2006, Journal of Marketing, 70, 19, 10.1509/jmkg.70.4.19 · doi:10.1509/jmkg.70.4.19 · Paper page
  20. Jansen BernardJ., 2009, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60, 2169, 10.1002/asi.21149 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Jin Seung-AA., 2013, New Media and Society, 15, 813, 10.1177/1461444812471814 · DOI
  22. Kelman HerbertC., 1961, Public Opinion Quarterly, 25, 57, 10.1086/266996 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Kozinets RobertV., 2010, Journal of Marketing, 74, 71, 10.1509/jmkg.74.2.71 · doi:10.1509/jmkg.74.2.71
  24. Laczniak RussellN., 2001, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 11, 57, 10.1207/S15327663JCP1101_5 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Li Charlene, 2011, Groundswell: Winning in a World Transformed by Social Technologies
  26. 10.1080/15252019.2011.10722188 · DOI
  27. Louie ThereseA., 2001, Marketing Letters, 12, 13, 10.1023/A:1008159717925 · DOI
  28. 10.1080/00913367.2002.10673684 · DOI
  29. McCracken Grant, 1989, Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 310, 10.1086/209217 · DOI · Paper page
  30. McCroskey JamesC., 1974, Speech Monographs, 41, 261, 10.1080/03637757409375845 · DOI · Paper page
  31. McStay Andrew, 2009, Digital Advertising
  32. Miller FeliciaM., 2011, Journal of Advertising Research, 51, 499, 10.2501/JAR-51-3-499-510 · DOI
  33. Norman AndrewT., 2006, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11, 1085, 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00309.x · DOI
  34. Norris Pippa, 2002, Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 7, 3, 10.1177/1081180X0200700301 · DOI · Paper page
  35. 10.1016/j.intmar.2011.01.002 · DOI · Paper page
  36. Parkhurst JenniferT., 1998, Journal of Early Adolescence, 18, 125, 10.1177/0272431698018002001 · DOI · Paper page
  37. Petty RichardE., 1983, Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 135, 10.1086/208954 · DOI · Paper page
  38. 10.1080/01292986.2011.587015 · DOI
  39. Putnam RobertD., 2000, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community
  40. Rogers EverettM., 1995, Diffusion of Innovation
  41. Rubin AlanM., 1985, Human Communication Research, 12, 155, 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1985.tb00071.x · DOI · Paper page
  42. Russell Mallory, 2012, Advertising Age
  43. Schaefer Mark, 2012, The Tao of Twitter: Changing Your Life and Business 140 Characters at a Time
  44. Scott DavidMeerman, 2011, The New Rules of Marketing and PR: How to Use Social Media, Online Video, Mobile Applications, Blogs, News Releases, and Viral Marketing to Reach Buyers Directly, 3rd ed.,
  45. Smith Aaron, 2011, Pew Internet and American Life Project
  46. Solis Brian, 2011, Engage: The Complete Guide for Brands and Businesses to Build, Cultivate, and Measure Success in the New Web
  47. Tajfel Henri, 1986, Social Comparison Theories: Key Readings in Social Psychology
  48. Tripp Carolyn, 1994, Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 535, 10.1086/209368 · DOI · Paper page
  49. Utz Sonja, 2010, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 15, 314, 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2010.01522.x · DOI · Paper page
  50. 10.1080/00913367.1981.10672781 · DOI
  51. Westerman David, 2012, Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 199, 10.1016/j.chb.2011.09.001 · DOI · Paper page
  52. White DarinW., 2009, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 37, 322, 10.1108/09590550910948556 · DOI
  53. Williams Dmitri, 2006, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11
  54. Zaichkowsky JudithLynne, 1985, Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 341, 10.1086/208520 · DOI · Paper page
  55. Zywica Jolene, 2008, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14, 1, 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2008.01429.x · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

See all 755

Metadata

Authors
Jin, S.-A. A., & Phua, J.
Venue
Journal of Advertising
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2014-04-03
Volume
43
Issue
2
Pages
181-195
ISSN
  • 0091-3367 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-7805
DOI
10.1080/00913367.2013.827606
OpenAlex
W2058307797
Cited by
755
References
13
FWCI
88.64
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Following Celebrities’ Tweets About Brands: The Impact of Twitter-Based Electronic Word-of-Mouth on Consumers’ Source Credibility Perception, Buying Intention, and Social Identification With Celebrities. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/00913367.2013.827606
The paper
Jin, S.-A. A., & Phua, J. (2014). Following Celebrities’ Tweets About Brands: The Impact of Twitter-Based Electronic Word-of-Mouth on Consumers’ Source Credibility Perception, Buying Intention, and Social Identification With Celebrities. Journal of Advertising. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2013.827606

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.