Spillover Effect of Perceived Online Products Information Deception in the Information Age

  • Mengwei LiuEmail author
  • Hui Lu
  • Yan Cao
  • Xue Bai
  • Rongli Xiao
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 1146)


This study is aiming to explore the mediating mechanism and regulating variables of the spillover effects of perceived deception in the context of continuous online product information presentation. Through experiments and empirical test, the following conclusions are drawn: (1) Perceived deception has negative spillover effects in online environment; (2) Trust plays a mediating role in the negative spillover effect of perceived deception. (3) Cognitive effort plays a regulatory role in the spillover effects’ direction of perceived deception. Specifically, perceived deception has negative spillover effect in conditions with low cognitive effort. In contrast, perceived deception has positive spillover effect in conditions with high cognitive effort. (4) Perceived substitutability plays a mediating role in the positive effects of perceived deception.


Product information Perceived deception Spillover effect Cognitive effort Purchase intention 


  1. 1.
    Xiao, B., Benbasat, I.: Product-related deception in e-commerce: a theoretical perspective. MIS Q. 35(1), 169–195 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pavlou, P.A., Gefen, D.: Psychological contract violation in online marketplaces: antecedents, consequences, and moderating role. Inf. Syst. Res. 16(4), 372–399 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ketron, S.: Consumer cynicism and perceived deception in vanity sizing: the moderating role of retailer (dis)honesty. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 33, 33–42 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sultan, F., Urban, G.L., Shankar, V., Bart, I.Y.: Determinants and role of trust in e-business: a large scale empirical study. Work. Pap. (4), 133–152 (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Darke, P.R., Ritchie, R.J.B.: The defensive consumer: advertising deception, defensive processing, and distrust. J. Mark. Res. 44(1), 114–127 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Riquelme, I.P., Roman, S., Iacobucci, D.: Consumers’ perceptions of online and offline retailer deception: a moderated mediation analysis. J. Interact. Mark. 35, 16–26 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Roman, S.: The ethics of online retailing: a scale development and validation from the consumers’ perspective. J. Bus. Ethics 72(2), 131–148 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., Straub, D.W.: Trust and TAM in online shopping: an integrated model. MIS Q. 27(1), 51–90 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Martin, L., Seta, J., Crelia, R.A.: Assimilation and contrast as a function of people’s willingness to expend effort in forming an impression. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 59, 27–37 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yeo, G., Neal, A.: A multilevel analysis of effort, practice, and performance: effects of ability, conscientiousness, and goal orientation. J. Appl. Psychol. 89(2), 231–247 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mengwei Liu
    • 1
    Email author
  • Hui Lu
    • 1
  • Yan Cao
    • 1
  • Xue Bai
    • 1
  • Rongli Xiao
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Economics and ManagementZhixing College of Hubei UniversityWuhanChina

Personalised recommendations