Best prices Special offers for members of the PWE book club The cheapest delivery

Credibility of electronic word of mouth (eWOM) sender — explorative perspective

Credibility of opinions published online depends on credibility of the site where these opinions can be found (e.g. webpage, chat, and forum) as well as the author (sender of message). Depending on who gives opinion, where it's placed and what it concerns, they can be perceived as more or less credible source of information. The main purpose of this article is to identify personal sources of information (eWOM senders) that are treated by consumers as credible opinion providers. The additional purpose is to examine both how customers (if at all) verify message and eWOM sender, and what they pay attention at. In order to achieve the assumed research objectives, 10 IDI's were conducted. Participants were purposively sampled from the panel of Internet users delivered by Mobile Institute (research agency) and with control of such variables as: gender, age, place of residence and purchasing activity in the Internet. It was found that perhaps it would be worth introducing the category of befriended expert to ewom's credibility studies.

Keywords: eWOM; credibility; qualitative study

References

References/Bibliografia

Adler, R. B., & Rodman, G. (2000). Understanding Human Communication. Seventh Edition. Harcourt College Publishers, Ft Worth, TX.

Aladwani, A. M., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2018). Towards a theory of SocioCitizenry: Quality anticipation, trust configuration, and approved adaptation of governmental social media. International Journal of Information Management, 43, 261–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.08.009

Alalwan, A. A. (2018). Investigating the impact of social media advertising features on customer purchase intention. International Journal of Information Management, 42, 65–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.06.001

Baharuddin, N. A., & Yaacob, M. (2020). Dimensions of eWOM Credibility on the Online Purchasing Activities among Consumers Through Social Media. Jurnal Komunikasi: Malaysian Journal of Communication, 36(3). https://doi.org/10.17576/JKMJC-2020-3603-21

Bayón, T. (2004). The effect of word of mouth on services switching: Measurement and moderating variables. European Journal of Marketing, 38(9–10), 1173–1185. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560410548924

Berthon, P., Nairn, A., & Money, A. (2003). Through the paradigm funnel: a conceptual tool for literature analysis. Marketing Education Review, 13(2), 55–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/10528008.2003.11488830

Chang, H. H., & Wu, L. H. (2014). An examination of negative e-WOM adoption: Brand commitment as a moderator. Decision Support Systems, 59, 206–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2013.11.008

Cheung, M. Y., Luo, C., SIA, C. L., & Chen, H. (2007). How do people evaluate electronic word-of-mouth? Informational and normative based determinants of perceived credibility of online consumer recommendations in China. PACIS 2007 Proceedings, 18.

Chih, W. H., Wang, K. Y., Hsu, L. C., & Huang, S. C. (2013). Investigating electronic word-of-mouth effects on online discussion forums: The role of perceived positive electronic word-of-mouth review credibility. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16(9), 658–668. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0364

Dellarocas, C. (2003). The digitization of word of mouth: Promise and challenges of online feedback mechanisms. Management Science, 49(10), 1407–1424. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.49.10.1407.17308

Djafarova, E., & Rushworth, C. (2017). Exploring the credibility of online celebrities' Instagram profiles in influencing the purchase decisions of young female users. Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.009

Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. J. (2007). The role of site features, user attributes, and information verification behaviors on the perceived credibility of web-based information. New media & Society, 9(2), 319–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444807075015

Fogg, B. J., Soohoo, C., Danielson, D. R., Marable, L., Stanford, J., & Tauber, E. R. (2003, June). How do users evaluate the credibility of Web sites? A study with over 2,500 participants. In Proceedings of the 2003 conference on Designing for user experiences (pp. 1–15). https://doi.org/10.1145/997078.997097

Granitz, N. A., & Ward, J. C. (1996). Virtual community: A sociocognitive analysis. ACR North American Advances.

Hovland, C. I., & Weiss, W. (1951). The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 15(4), 635–650. https://doi.org/10.1086/266350

Ismagilova, E., Dwivedi, Y. K., Slade, E., & Williams, M. D. (2017). Electronic word of mouth (eWOM) in the marketing context: A state of the art analysis and future directions. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52459-7

Ismagilova, E., Slade, E., Rana, N. P., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2020). The effect of characteristics of source credibility on consumer behaviour: A meta-analysis. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.01.005

Jensen, M. L., Averbeck, J. M., Zhang, Z., & Wright, K. B. (2013). Credibility of anonymous online product reviews: A language expectancy perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 30(1), 293–324. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222300109

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, 43(2), 181–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2013.827606

Mumuni, A. G., O'Reilly, K., MacMillan, A., Cowley, S., & Kelley, B. (2020). Online Product Review Impact: The Relative Effects of Review Credibility and Review Relevance. Journal of Internet Commerce, 19(2), 153–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332861.2019.1700740

Qiu, L., Pang, J., & Lim, K. H. (2012). Effects of conflicting aggregated rating on eWOM review credibility and diagnosticity: The moderating role of review valence. Decision Support Systems, 54(1), 631–643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2012.08.020

Racherla, P., & Friske, W. (2012). Perceived 'usefulness' of online consumer reviews: An exploratory investigation across three services categories. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 11(6), 548–559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2012.06.003

Shiau, W. L., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Lai, H. H. (2018). Examining the core knowledge on facebook. International Journal of Information Management, 43, 52–63.

Silverman, D. (2015). Interpreting qualitative data. Sage. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.06.006

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology. Handbook of Qualitative Research, 17(1), 273–285.

Taylor, C., & Gibbs, G. R. (2010). How and what to code. Online QDA Web Site, 19.

Teng, S., Khong, K. W., Chong, A. Y. L., & Lin, B. (2017). Persuasive electronic word-of-mouth messages in social media. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 57(1), 76–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2016.1181501

Ukpabi, D. C., & Karjaluoto, H. (2018). What drives travelers' adoption of user-generated content? A literature review. Tourism Management Perspectives, 28, 251–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2018.03.006

Wathen, C. N., & Burkell, J. (2002). Believe it or not: Factors influencing credibility on the Web. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(2), 134–144. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.10016

Yan, Q., Wu, S., Zhou, Y., & Zhang, L. (2018). How differences in eWOM platforms impact consumers' perceptions and decision-making. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 28(4), 315–333. https://doi.org/10.1080/10919392.2018.1517479

Article price
4.00
Price of the magazine number
14.00
Subscription
163.00 €
122.00
get subscription