IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/orisre/v33y2022i3p978-1001.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Seems Legit: An Investigation of the Assessing and Sharing of Unverifiable Messages on Online Social Networks

Author

Listed:
  • Jackie London

    (Sellinger School of Business, Loyola University Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland 21210)

  • Siyuan Li

    (Raymond A. Mason School of Business, College of William & Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia 23187)

  • Heshan Sun

    (Michael F. Price College of Business, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma 73019)

Abstract

Unverifiable messages abound on the Internet. Why do people share messages they cannot verify? This study develops an in-depth understanding of how messages containing unverifiable product information differ and why users share such messages over online social networks (OSNs). We develop a classification that identifies different types of unverifiable messages that OSN users encounter prior to the release of a new product and conduct two studies to investigate the resharing of true (information leak) and false (rumor) messages originating from unofficial channels. We contend that such differences (true vs. false) are likely to result in differentiating message characteristics. Employing a dual-processing theoretical lens, we further hypothesize that because these messages are unverifiable, recipients will take a holistic approach and rely on both content (plausibility) and noncontent (vividness, sender credibility) message characteristics when assessing the message. Specifically, when faced with an unverifiable message, the presence of content characteristics amplifies the effect of noncontent characteristics, suggesting that plausibility enhances the value of vividness and sender credibility. These characteristics jointly help recipients assess a message’s diagnosticity and novelty, which are the primary psychological factors driving the reshare decision. We employ a multimethod approach with Study 1 leveraging secondary data collected from Twitter to assess objective behavior and Study 2 employing a controlled experiment to assess psychological processes. Together, the studies offer compelling evidence in support of our model, indicating that leaks and rumors exhibit different message characteristics; that recipients employ a synergistic processing strategy when assessing unverifiable messages; and that unverifiable messages are reshared when they are perceived to be helpful or novel. The findings from this research have implications for both research and practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Jackie London & Siyuan Li & Heshan Sun, 2022. "Seems Legit: An Investigation of the Assessing and Sharing of Unverifiable Messages on Online Social Networks," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 33(3), pages 978-1001, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:orisre:v:33:y:2022:i:3:p:978-1001
    DOI: 10.1287/isre.2021.1095
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/isre.2021.1095
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/isre.2021.1095?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ritu Agarwal & Jayesh Prasad, 1998. "A Conceptual and Operational Definition of Personal Innovativeness in the Domain of Information Technology," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 9(2), pages 204-215, June.
    2. Herr, Paul M & Kardes, Frank R & Kim, John, 1991. "Effects of Word-of-Mouth and Product-Attribute Information on Persuasion: An Accessibility-Diagnosticity Perspective," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 17(4), pages 454-462, March.
    3. Farrell, Joseph & Saloner, Garth, 1986. "Installed Base and Compatibility: Innovation, Product Preannouncements, and Predation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(5), pages 940-955, December.
    4. Unger, Lynette S & Kernan, Jerome B, 1983. "On the Meaning of Leisure: An Investigation of Some Determinants of the Subjective Experience," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 9(4), pages 381-392, March.
    5. Joseph Farrell & Garth Saloner, 1985. "Installed Base and Compatibility With Implications for Product Preannouncements," Working papers 385, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Department of Economics.
    6. Dale L. Goodhue, 1995. "Understanding User Evaluations of Information Systems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 41(12), pages 1827-1844, December.
    7. William H. DeLone & Ephraim R. McLean, 1992. "Information Systems Success: The Quest for the Dependent Variable," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 3(1), pages 60-95, March.
    8. Rosseel, Yves, 2012. "lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 48(i02).
    9. Filieri, Raffaele, 2015. "What makes online reviews helpful? A diagnosticity-adoption framework to explain informational and normative influences in e-WOM," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(6), pages 1261-1270.
    10. Jung, Heonsoo, 2011. "Signaling quality with new product preannouncements: Vaporware and the role of reference quality," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 64(11), pages 1251-1258.
    11. Andreas I. Nicolaou & D. Harrison McKnight, 2006. "Perceived Information Quality in Data Exchanges: Effects on Risk, Trust, and Intention to Use," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 17(4), pages 332-351, December.
    12. David Constant & Sara Kiesler & Lee Sproull, 1994. "What's Mine Is Ours, or Is It? A Study of Attitudes about Information Sharing," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 5(4), pages 400-421, December.
    13. Chakravarty, Anindita & Liu, Yong & Mazumdar, Tridib, 2010. "The Differential Effects of Online Word-of-Mouth and Critics' Reviews on Pre-release Movie Evaluation," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 185-197.
    14. Karl E. Weick & Kathleen M. Sutcliffe & David Obstfeld, 2005. "Organizing and the Process of Sensemaking," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(4), pages 409-421, August.
    15. Cheng Yi & Zhenhui (Jack) Jiang & Izak Benbasat, 2017. "Designing for Diagnosticity and Serendipity: An Investigation of Social Product-Search Mechanisms," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 28(2), pages 413-429, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Filieri, Raffaele & Alguezaui, Salma & McLeay, Fraser, 2015. "Why do travelers trust TripAdvisor? Antecedents of trust towards consumer-generated media and its influence on recommendation adoption and word of mouth," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 174-185.
    2. Xixi Li & J. J. Po-An Hsieh & Arun Rai, 2013. "Motivational Differences Across Post-Acceptance Information System Usage Behaviors: An Investigation in the Business Intelligence Systems Context," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 659-682, September.
    3. Lu, Shuya & Wu, Jianan & Tseng, Shih-Lun (Allen), 2018. "How Online Reviews Become Helpful: A Dynamic Perspective," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 17-28.
    4. Tsung Teng Chen, 2012. "The development and empirical study of a literature review aiding system," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 92(1), pages 105-116, July.
    5. Yucheng Zhang & Zhiling Wang & Lin Xiao & Lijun Wang & Pei Huang, 2023. "Discovering the evolution of online reviews: A bibliometric review," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 33(1), pages 1-22, December.
    6. Antonio Estache & Marco Manacorda & Tommaso M. Valletti, 2002. "Telecommunications Reform, Access Regulation, and Internet Adoption in Latin America," Economía Journal, The Latin American and Caribbean Economic Association - LACEA, vol. 0(Spring 20), pages 153-218, January.
    7. Aladwani, Adel M. & Dwivedi, Yogesh K., 2018. "Towards a theory of SocioCitizenry: Quality anticipation, trust configuration, and approved adaptation of governmental social media," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 261-272.
    8. Dennis W. Carlton & Michael Waldman, 2002. "The Strategic Use of Tying to Preserve and Create Market Power in Evolving Industries," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 33(2), pages 194-220, Summer.
    9. Haili Zhang & Yufan Wang & Michael Song, 2019. "Does Competitive Intensity Moderate the Relationships between Sustainable Capabilities and Sustainable Organizational Performance in New Ventures?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-18, December.
    10. Kari Kemppainen, 2004. "Competition and regulation in European retail payment systems," Microeconomics 0404008, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Lingling Gao & Kerem Aksel Waechter, 0. "Examining the role of initial trust in user adoption of mobile payment services: an empirical investigation," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-24.
    12. Yi-Nung Yang, 1996. "Network Effects, Pricing Strategies, and Optimal Upgrade Time in Software Provision," Industrial Organization 9602001, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Ram Rao & Ozge Turut, 2019. "New Product Preannouncement: Phantom Products and the Osborne Effect," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(8), pages 3776-3799, August.
    14. Netsanet Haile & Jörn Altmann, 2016. "Structural analysis of value creation in software service platforms," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 26(2), pages 129-142, May.
    15. De Bijl, Paul W. J. & Goyal, Sanjeev, 1995. "Technological change in markets with network externalities," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 307-325, September.
    16. Stephan M. Levy, 1995. "Vaporware," Industrial Organization 9512001, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 29 Oct 1996.
    17. Li, Jian & Zhou, Junjie & Chen, Ying-Ju, 2021. "The Limit of Targeting in Networks," ISU General Staff Papers 202112081957590000, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    18. Hess, Mike & Ricart, Joan E., 2002. "Managing customer switching costs: A framework for competing in the networked environment," IESE Research Papers D/472, IESE Business School.
    19. Viglia, Giampaolo & Abrate, Graziano, 2017. "When distinction does not pay off - Investigating the determinants of European agritourism prices," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 45-52.
    20. Jean J. Gabszewicz & Filomena Garcia, 2007. "Intrinsic quality improvements and network externalities," International Journal of Economic Theory, The International Society for Economic Theory, vol. 3(4), pages 261-278, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:orisre:v:33:y:2022:i:3:p:978-1001. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.