THE INFLUENCE OF INFORMATION HEURISTICS IN DETERMINING THE EVALUATION OF MICROBLOG MUSIC REVIEW CREDIBILITY

Year 2020, Volume: 12 Issue: 1, 82 - 97, 19.02.2020

Mdumiso Mazibuko Nobukhosi Dlodlo

Abstract

The inherent fears about the credibility of digital media, stemming from the fact that there are few standards of quality control, exacerbate potential problems regarding the reliability of electronic word of mouth (eWOM). The primary objective for this study was to investigate the influence of credibility heuristics when applied during the evaluation of eWOM communication about music content generated by microbloggers. A mono-quantitative research strategy was applied, whereby, hypotheses testing was consummated from a cross-sectional sample of 485 participants (microbloggers) based in five major towns of the southern Gauteng region in South Africa. A paper and pencil-based questionnaire was administered. Six factors were drawn by applying an exploratory factor analysis procedure. Mono-method bias was checked and the reliability and validity of the study were confirmed. The hypotheses testing comprised the estimation of a multiple regression model. The findings established the predictive power of four heuristics that pose a statistically significant influence on consumers’ evaluation of eWOM credibility. The findings point to the import in applying information heuristics in evaluating microblog reviews about music, a low-involvement product. The findings could assist both microblog administrators and marketing communication practitioners to better design the platforms to facilitate reader credibility evaluations regarding a broader product portfolio.

Keywords

Credibility, Heuristics, Microblogs and music reviews

References

• Babin, B.J. & Zikmund, W.G. (2016). Essentials of marketing research. 6th ed. Boston, MA: Cengage learning. BlueMagnet Report. (2016). Social media statistics South Africa. [Online]. Available at: https://www.bluemagnet.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/State-of-Social-Media-in-South-Africa-Social-Media-Growth-2012-to-2016.pdf. Accessed on 18 January 2019. Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristics versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), 752-766. Cheung, Y.M., Luo, C., Sia, C.L. & Chen, H. (2009). Credibility of electronic word-of-mouth: informational and normative determinants of online consumer recommendations. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 13(4), 9-38. Brown, T.J., Suter, T.A. & Churchill, G.A. 2018. Basic marketing research: customer insight and managerial action. 9th ed. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning. Durmaz, A. & Yuksel, M. 2017. The effects of eWOM on purchase intention: evidence from e-commerce sites. The Journal of the Faculty of Economics and Administrative Science, 22(1), 231-239. Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS. 4th ed. London: Sage. Fogg, B.J. (2003). Persuasive technology: using computers to change what we think and do. New York, NY: Morgan Kauffmann Publishers. Gigerenzer, G. & Todd, P.M. (1999). Simple heuristics that make us smart. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. & Anderson, R.E. (2018). Multivative data analysis. 8th ed. Hamsphire, UK: Cengage Learning. 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. London, UK: Springer Nature. Jin, Y. & Liu, B.F. (2010). The blog-mediated crisis communication model: recommendations for responding to influential external blogs. Journal of Public Relations Research, 22(4), 429-455. Lin, C., Wu, Y.S. & Chen, J.C.V. (2013). Electronic word-of-mouth: the moderating roles of product involvement and brand image. Proceedings of the 2013 international conference of technology innovation and industrial management. Phuket, Thailand. 29 to 31 May. pp 1-9. Luo, C., Luo, X., Schatzberg, L. & Sia, C.L. (2013). The impact of informational factors on online recommendation credibility: the moderating role of source credibility. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 56(1), 92-102. Luzzani, L. (2015). Can you believe what you see? A qualitative study about the determinants affecting the perceived credibility of video eWOM. Master’s Dissertation. Lund University, Lund: Sweden. pp 1-121. Malhotra, N.K., Nunan, D. & Birks, D.F. (2017). Marketing research: an applied approach. 5th ed. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education. Metzger, M.J., Flanagin, A.J. & Medders, R. (2010). Social and heuristic approaches to online credibility evaluation. Journal of Communication, 60(3), 413-439. Metzger, M.T. & Flanagin, A.J. (2013). Credibility and trust of information in online environments: the use of cognitive heuristics. Journal of Pragmatics, 59, 210-220. Moran, G. & Muzellec, L. (2017). eWOM credibility on social networking sites: a framework. Journal of Marketing Communications, 23(2), 149-161. Schiffman, L., Kanuk, L., Brewer, S., Crous, F., Du Preeza, R., Human, D., Jansen Van Rensburg., Raninger, S., Tshivhase, T., Shrosbree, T. & Ungerer, L. (2014). Consumer behaviour: Global and Southern African Perspectives. Cape Town, South Africa: Pearson Education. Shamhuyenhanzva, R.M., Van Tonder, E., Lombard, M.R. & Hemsworth, D. (2016). Factors influencing Generation Y consumers’ perceptions of eWOM credibility: a study of the fast-food industry. The International Journal Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 26(4), 435-455. Shu, W. (2014). Continual use of microblogs. Behaviour and Information Technology, 33(7), 666-677. Sundar, S.S. (2008). The MAIN model: a heuristic approach to understanding technology effects on credibility. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Tabachnick, B.G. & Fidell, L.S. (2012). Using multivariate statistics. 6th ed. Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Teng, S., Khong, K.W., Goh, W.W. & Chong, A.Y. (2014). Examining the antecedents of persuasive eWOM messages in social media. Online Information Review, 38(6), 746-768. Wu, P.F. (2013). In search of negativity bias: an empirical study of perceived helpfulness of online reviews. Journal of Psychology and Marketing, 30(11), 971-984.