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

• Authors: Jolanta Tkaczyk , Justyna Skorupska

Title variants

PL

Wiarygodność nadawcy opinii w procesie komunikacji nieformalnej online - perspektywa eksploracyjna

Abstracts

PL

Wiarygodność opinii publikowanych w Internecie zależy od wielu czynników, z których najistotniejsze to wiarygodność serwisu, na którym te opinie się znajdują (np. strona internetowa, czat, forum), oraz wiarygodność autora (nadawcy wiadomości). W zależności od tego, kto wyda opinię, gdzie się ta opinia znajduje i czego dotyczy, wiarygodność źródła informacji może być różnie postrzegana. Głównym celem artykułu jest identyfikacja osobistych źródeł informacji (nadawców wiadomości), które są traktowane przez konsumentów jako wiarygodni dostawcy opinii. Dodatkowym celem jest zbadanie, w jaki sposób klienci (jeśli w ogóle) weryfikują wiadomość i jej nadawcę oraz na co zwracają uwagę. Aby osiągnąć założone cele badawcze, przeprowadzono badania eksploracyjne w postaci 10 pogłębionych wywiadów indywidualnych. Uczestnicy zostali dobrani celowo z panelu internautów dostarczonego przez Mobile Institute (agencję badawczą) i pod kontrolą takich zmiennych, jak: płeć, wiek, miejsce zamieszkania i aktywność zakupowa w Internecie. Rezultatem badań jest opracowanie katalogu wiarygodnych osobistych źródeł informacji, a także narzędzia badawczego do badań o charakterze eksplanacyjnym.

EN

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

EN

eWOM; credibility; qualitative study

PL

komunikacja nieformalna online; wiarygodność źródła informacji; badania jakościowe

• Publisher: Polskie Wydawnictwo Ekonomiczne
• Journal: Marketing i Rynek
• Year: 2021
• Issue: 4
• Pages: 3-9

Dates

published

2021

Contributors

author

Jolanta Tkaczyk

• Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego

• https://orcid.org/0000000221104314

author

Justyna Skorupska

• Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego

• https://orcid.org/0000000187937434

References

• 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

Identifiers

DOI

10.33226/1231-7853.2021.4.1

Biblioteka Nauki

2069754