The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Posting versus Lurking: Communicating in a Multiple Audience Context
Abstract
Two experiments examined public and private responding in a multiple-audience context—a context in which members have varying opinions. I propose and find that posters (those communicating their experience to others) are influenced only by another’s negative opinion because it triggers such social concerns as appearing indiscriminate. Consequently, they adjust their public attitudes downward. Self-presentational concerns appear to cause this negativity bias: lurkers (those not posting their opinion) were less affected by another’s negative opinion. Further-more, posters presented more than one side when publicly explaining their atti-tudes. These effects persisted despite posters ’ favorable product experiences and commitment to these attitudes. After patronizing a local restaurant, I visited City-search’s Web site to post my experience. I know that Citysearch attracts a diverse audience. How might this in-fluence the degree to which I incorporate others ’ reviews into my own? Past theorizing does not fully address the types of social pressures present in online group contexts
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
Grice, H. P. (1975) · Speech Acts · doi:10.1163/9789004368811_003 · Cited by 23,221
Motivated closing of the mind: “Seizing” and “freezing”
Kruglanski, A. W., & Webster, D. M. (1996) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.103.2.263 · Cited by 2,379 · cited 1×
“This is contrary to prior theorizing that speakers think about prototypical, supporting information (Kruglanski and Webster 1996).”
Result
Cited by
de Vries, L., Gensler, S., & Leeflang, P. S. H. (2012) · Journal of Interactive Marketing · doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2012.01.003 · Cited by 2,060
Word of mouth and interpersonal communication: A review and directions for future research
Berger, J. (2014) · Journal of Consumer Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2014.05.002 · Cited by 1,469
Influencers on Instagram: Antecedents and consequences of opinion leadership
Casaló, L. V., Flavián, C., & Ibáñez-Sánchez, S. (2020) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.07.005 · Cited by 1,336
Lamberton, C., & Stephen, A. T. (2016) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1509/jm.15.0415 · Cited by 1,127
Filieri, R. (2015) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.11.006 · Cited by 1,083
Bibliometrics of social media research: A co-citation and co-word analysis
Leung, X. Y., Sun, J., & Bai, B. (2017) · International Journal of Hospitality Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2017.06.012 · Cited by 546
Purchase decision of generation Y in an online environment
Prasad, S., Garg, A., & Prasad, S. (2019) · Marketing Intelligence & Planning · doi:10.1108/mip-02-2018-0070 · Cited by 172
Mosteller, J., & Poddar, A. (2017) · Journal of Interactive Marketing · doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2017.02.003 · Cited by 168
Exploring Consumptive Moments of Value‐Creating Practice in Online Community
Hartmann, B. J., Wiertz, C., & Arnould, E. J. (2015) · Psychology & Marketing · doi:10.1002/mar.20782 · Cited by 77
Social network sites: early adopters' personality and influence
Lynn, T., Muzellec, L., Caemmerer, B., & Turley, D. (2017) · Journal of Product & Brand Management · doi:10.1108/jpbm-10-2015-1025 · Cited by 38
Metadata
- Authors
- Schlosser, A. E.
- Venue
- Journal of Consumer Research
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2005-09
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 260-265
- ISSN
- 0093-5301 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5277
- OpenAlex
- W2121779059
- Cited by
- 402
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 14.53
- 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.