Advertisement

Impact of Anonymity and Identity Deception on Social Media eWOM

  • Payal Shrivastava KapoorEmail author
  • Srinivas Gunta
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9844)

Abstract

Brand-related consumer to consumer communication, eWOM, is taking place in many forms across the social media space. Rules that governed credibility assessment of brand-related communication, WOM, in the Face to Face context may vary on social media, specifically because of anonymity that is afforded on different social media sites. The current study looks closely on the impact of anonymity in typical eWOM behaviour context on social media by drawing observations from a recent case in point and literature. The paper concludes with a list of relevant factors and propositions that must be tested empirically to draw greater understanding of the phenomenon.

Keywords

Anonymous communication eWOM Credibility Computer-mediated communication 

References

  1. 1.
    Blackshaw, P., Nazzaro, M.: Consumer-generated media (CGM) 101: Word-of-mouth in the age of the web-fortified consumer, 2nd edn. A Nielsen BuzzMetrics White Paper, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Castillo, C., Mendoza, M., Poblete, B.: Information Credibility on Twitter. In: Proceeding of WWW 2011, March 28–April 1, 2011, Hyderabad, India, ACM (2011). ISBN 978-1-4503-0632-4/11/03Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cheung, M.Y., Luo, C., Sia, C.L., Chen, H.: Credibility of electronic word-of-mouth: ınformational and normative determinants of on-line consumer recommendations. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 13(4), 9–38 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chu, S.C., Kim, Y.: Determinants of consumer engagement in electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) in social networking sites. Int. J. Advert. 30(1), 47–75 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Donath, J.S.: Identity and deception in the virtual community. Commun. Cyberspace 1996, 29–59 (1999)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cialdini, R.B., Goldstein, N.J.: Social influence: compliance and conformity. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 55, 591–621 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hajli, M.N., Sims, J., Featherman, M., Love, P.E.: Credibility of information in online communities. J. Strateg. Mark. 23(3), 238–253 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K.P., Walsh, G., Gremler, D.D.: Electronic word-of-mouth via consumer-opinion platforms: what motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the internet? J. Interact. Mark. 18(1), 38–52 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hollenbaugh, E.E., Everett, M.K.: The effects of anonymity on self-disclosure in blogs: an application of the online disinhibition effect. J. Comput.-Mediat. Commun. 18(3), 283–302 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jansen, B.J., Zhang, M., Sobel, K., Chowdury, A.: Twitter power: tweets as electronic word of mouth. J. Am. Soc. Inform. Sci. Technol. 60(11), 2169–2188 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jensen, M.L., Averbeck, J.M., Zhang, Z., Wright, K.B.: Credibility of anonymous online product reviews: a language expectancy perspective. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 30(1), 293–324 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Keenan, A., Shiri, A.: Sociability and social interaction on social networking websites. Libr. Rev. 58(6), 438–450 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lee, S.Y., Hansen, S.S., Lee, J.K.: What makes us click “like” on Facebook? Examining psychological, technological, and motivational factors on virtual endorsement. Comput. Commun. 73, 332–341 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    McCroskey, J.C., Richmond, V.P., Daly, J.A.: The development of a measure of perceived homophily in interpersonal communication. Hum. Commun. Res. 1(4), 323–332 (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Metzger, M.J.: Making sense of credibility on the web: models for evaluating online information and recommendations for future research. J. Am. Soc. Inform. Sci. Technol. 58(13), 2078–2091 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Qian, H., Scott, C.R.: Anonymity and self-disclosure on weblogs. J. Comput.-Mediat. Commun. 12(4), 1428–1451 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Suler, J.: The online disinhibition effect. Cyberpsychol. & Behav. 7(3), 321–326 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Walther, J.B.: Computer-mediated communication impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Commun. Res. 23(1), 3–43 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Walther, J.B., Van Der Heide, B., Hamel, L.M., Shulman, H.C.: Self-generated versus other-generated statements and ımpressions in computer-mediated communication a test of warranting theory using facebook. Commun. Res. 36(2), 229–253 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wathen, C.N., Burkell, J.: Believe it or not: factors influencing credibility on the Web. J. Am. Soc. Inform. Sci. Technol. 53(2), 134–144 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Westerman, D., Spence, P.R., Van Der Heide, B.: A social network as information: the effect of system generated reports of connectedness on credibility on Twitter. Comput. Hum. Behav. 28(1), 199–206 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zhao, S., Grasmuck, S., Martin, J.: Identity construction on Facebook: digital empowerment in anchored relationships. Comput. Hum. Behav. 24(5), 1816–1836 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.FORE School of ManagementNew DelhiIndia
  2. 2.Indian Institute of ManagementIndoreIndia

Personalised recommendations