The Role of Self-Efficacy, Persuasion Knowledge, Perceived Deception, and Consumer Cynicism in The Adoption of Misinformation about Brands on Social Media

Öz

The aim of this study is to examine the effects of consumers' self-efficacy in identifying misinformation about brands spreading on social media and their persuasion knowledge to detect misinformation on the deception they perceive from misinformation and their tendencies to adopt such information. The study also tests the moderating role of consumer cynicism on the relationships between persuasion knowledge, perceived deception, and the adoption of the information. The data used in the analysis were obtained through an online survey from 202 participants who were exposed to misinformation about cola brands. The hypotheses, based on the study's objectives, were tested using mediation and moderation effect analyses. The results of the mediation effect analysis revealed that self-efficacy in identifying misleading information about brands on social media negatively influenced the adoption of the information serially through persuasion knowledge and perceived deception. The moderation analysis showed that consumer cynicism negatively moderated the positive relationship between persuasion knowledge and perceived deception. Accordingly, it was found that as the level of consumer cynicism increased, the effect of persuasion knowledge on perceived deception decreased.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Brand
• Social Media
• Misinformation
• Consumer Cynicism
• Adoption of Information

Markalar Hakkında Sosyal Medyada Yayılan Yanıltıcı Bilgilerin Benimsenmesinde Öz Yeterlilik, İkna Bilgisi, Algılanan Aldatma ve Tüketici Sinizminin Rolü

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı tüketicilerin markalar hakkında sosyal medyada yayılan yanıltıcı bilgileri tanımlamadaki öz yeterlilikleri ve yanıltıcı bilgileri tespit etmeye yönelik sahip oldukları ikna bilgilerinin bu bilgilerden algıladıkları aldatma ve söz konusu bilgileri benimseme eğilimleri üzerindeki etkilerinin incelenmesidir. Çalışmada ayrıca tüketici sinizminin ikna bilgisi, algılanan aldatma ve bilginin benimsenmesi arasındaki ilişkiler üzerindeki düzenleyici rolü test edilmektedir. Analizde kullanılan veriler kola markaları ile ilgili yanıltıcı bilgilere maruz bırakılan 202 katılımcıdan çevrimiçi anket yöntemiyle elde edilmiştir. Araştırmanın amacı doğrultusunda geliştirilen hipotezler aracı etki analizi ve düzenleyici etki analizi kullanılarak test edilmiştir. Aracı etki analizi sonucunda markalar hakkında sosyal medyada yayılan yanıltıcı bilgileri tanımlama konusundaki öz yeterliliğin ikna bilgisi ve algılanan aldatma aracılığıyla serisel olarak bilginin benimsenmesini negatif yönlü bir şekilde etkilediği tespit edilmiştir. Düzenleyici etki analizi sonucunda tüketici sinizminin ikna bilgisi ve algılanan aldatma arasındaki pozitif yönlü ilişkide negatif düzenleyici rol oynadığı belirlenmiştir. Buna göre tüketici sinizmi düzeyi arttıkça ikna bilgisinin algılanan aldatma üzerindeki etkisinin azaldığı tespit edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Marka
• Sosyal Medya
• Yanıltıcı Bilgi
• Tüketici Sinizmi

Kaynakça

1. Akram, U., Lavuri, R., Ansari, A. R., Parida, R., & Junaid, M. (2023). Havocs of social media fake news! Analysing the effect of credibility, trustworthiness, and self-efficacy on consumer’s buying intentions. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 1-15.
2. Alalwan, A. A., Rana, N. P., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Algharabat, R. (2017). Social media in marketing: A review and analysis of the existing literature. Telematics and Informatics, 34(7), 1177-1190.
3. Ansari, J. A. N., Azhar, M., & Akhtar, M. J. (2022). The spread of misinformation on social media: An insightful countermeasure to restrict. Studies in Economics and Business Relations, 1(1), 17-30.
4. Aydın, G. (2021). Consumer cynicism, skepticism, brand boycotts and social media. Ufuk Bingöl (Ed.). In Trending Topics on Social Media Researches (61-90). Berlin: Peter Lang.
5. Balmas, M. (2014). When fake news becomes real: Combined exposure to multiple news sources and political attitudes of inefficacy, alienation, and cynicism. Communication Research, 41(3), 430-454.
6. Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122-147.
7. Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185-216.
8. Cham, T. H., Cheng, B. L., Aw, E. C. X., Tan, G. W. H., Loh, X. M., & Ooi, K. B. (2024). Counteracting the impact of online fake news on brands. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 64(2), 245-264.

9. Chaouachi, S. G., & Rached, K. S. B. (2019). Perceived deception in advertising: Antecedents and consequences. European Journal of Management and Marketing Studies, 3(4), 123-141.
10. Chen, S., Xiao, L., & Kumar, A. (2023). Spread of misinformation on social media: What contributes to it and how to combat it. Computers in Human Behavior, 141, 107643.
11. Chen, Z. F., & Cheng, Y. (2020). Consumer response to fake news about brands on social media: the effects of self-efficacy, media trust, and persuasion knowledge on brand trust. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 29(2), 188-198.
12. Cheung, M. Y., Luo, C., Sia, C. L., & Chen, H. (2009). Credibility of electronic word-of-mouth: Informational and normative determinants of on-line consumer recommendations. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 13(4), 9-38.
13. Di Domenico, G., & Visentin, M. (2020). Fake news or true lies? Reflections about problematic contents in marketing. International Journal of Market Research, 62(4), 409-417.
14. Di Domenico, G., Sit, J., Ishizaka, A., & Nunan, D. (2021). Fake news, social media and marketing: A systematic review. Journal of Business Research, 124, 329-341.
15. Ferrucci, P., & Hopp, T. (2023). Let’s intervene: How platforms can combine media literacy and self-efficacy to fight fake news. Communication and The Public, 8(4), 367-389.
16. Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The persuasion knowledge model: How people cope with persuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 1-31.
17. Guo, Z., Cho, J. H., Chen, R., Sengupta, S., Hong, M., & Mitra, T. (2021). Online social deception and its countermeasures: A survey. IEEE Access, 9, 1770-1806.
18. Hair, J. F, Black, W. C., Babin, B. J. & Anderson, R. E. (2014). Multivariate data analysis. USA: Peaarson. Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford publications.
19. Helm, A. E., Moulard, J. G., & Richins, M. (2015). Consumer cynicism: Developing a scale to measure underlying attitudes influencing marketplace shaping and withdrawal behaviours. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 39(5), 515-524.
20. Hopp, T. (2022). Fake news self-efficacy, fake news identification, and content sharing on Facebook. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 19(2), 229-252.
21. Hossain, M. A., Sabani, A., Bandyopadhyay, A., Raman, R., Goyal, D. P., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2023). Investigating the effect of social media fake news on consumer behavior: an empirical study with multiple moderations. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 1-18.
22. Israeli, T., Popper-Giveon, A., & Keshet, Y. (2024). Information gaps in persuasion knowledge: The discourse regarding the COVID-19 vaccination. Health, 28(1), 58-73.
23. Kaur, K., & Gupta, S. (2023). Towards dissemination, detection and ombating misinformation on social media: A literature review. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 38(8), 1656-1674.
24. Kim, T., & Im, I. (2025). Understanding users’ AI manipulation intention: An empirical investigation of the antecedents in the context of AI recommendation algorithms. Information & Management, 62(1), 104061.
25. Kopp, C., Korb, K. B., & Mills, B. I. (2018). Information-theoretic models of deception: Modelling cooperation and diffusion in populations exposed to "fake news". PLOS ONE, 13(11), 1-35.
26. Kumar, S., & Shah, N. (2018). False information on web and social media: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.08559
27. Kurtoğlu, R., Özbölük, T., & Altın, B. (2025). When brand cynicism turns into brand hate: The mediating role of brand hate on the relationship between brand cynicism and negative WOM. Journal of Brand Management, 32, 65-78.
28. Ladeira, W. J., Dalmoro, M., Santini, F. D. O., & Jardim, W. C. (2022). Visual cognition of fake news: The effects of consumer brand engagement. Journal of Marketing Communications, 28(6), 681-701.
29. Ma, J., Chen, Y., Zhu, H., & Gan, Y. (2023). Fighting COVID-19 misinformation through an online game based on the inoculation theory: Analyzing the mediating effects of perceived threat and persuasion knowledge. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(2), 1-18.
30. Mustak, M., Salminen, J., Mäntymäki, M., Rahman, A., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2023). Deepfakes: Deceptions, mitigations, and opportunities. Journal of Business Research, 154, 113368.
31. Nakip, M. (2013). Pazarlamada araştırma teknikleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayoncılık.
32. Newell, S. J., Goldsmith, R. E., & Banzhaf, E. J. (1998). The effect of misleading environmental claims on consumer perceptions of advertisements. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 6(2), 48-60.
33. Ormond, D., Warkentin, M., Johnston, A. C., & Thompson, S. C. (2016). Perceived deception: Evaluating source credibility and self-efficacy. Journal of Information Privacy and Security, 12(4), 197-217.
34. Powers, G., Johnson, J. P., & Killian, G. (2023). To tell or not to tell: The effects of disclosing deepfake video on US and Indian consumers’ purchase intention. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 23(4), 339-355.
35. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Contemporary approaches to assessing mediation in communication research. In A. F. Hayes, M. D. Slater, & L. B. Snyder (Eds.). The Sage sourcebook of advanced data analysis methods for communication research (pp. 1354). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
36. Pundir, V., Devi, E. B., & Nath, V. (2021). Arresting fake news sharing on social media: A theory of planned behavior approach. Management Research Review, 44(8), 1108-1138.
37. Rahmanian, E. (2023). Fake news: a classification proposal and a future research agenda. Spanish Journal of Marketing-ESIC, 27(1), 60-78.
38. Silva, J. M., Rosario, A. T., Gestoso, C. G. and Romana, F. A. (2023), Fake News in marketing, Preprints, https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202305.1630.v1
39. Sussman, S. W., & Siegal, W. S. (2003). Informational influence in organizations: An integrated approach to knowledge adoption. Information systems research, 14(1), 47-65.
40. Talwar, S., Dhir, A., Kaur, P., Zafar, N., & Alrasheedy, M. (2019). Why do people share fake news? Associations between the dark side of social media use and fake news sharing behavior. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 51, 72-82.
41. Teyit.org. (2025). Yayın İlkeleri. https://teyit.org/yayin-ilkeleri
42. Verma, A., & Nayak, J. K. (2024). The power of perception: how persuasion knowledge and perceived deception in advertisement impact brand-related fake news adoption. Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication.
43. Visentin, M., Pizzi, G., & Pichierri, M. (2019). Fake news, real problems for brands: The impact of content truthfulness and source credibility on consumers’ behavioral intentions toward the advertised brands. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 45(1), 99-112.
44. Wang, W., & Jacobson, S. (2023). Effects of health misinformation on misbeliefs: Understanding the moderating roles of different types of knowledge. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, 21(1), 76-93.
45. Wang, Y. (2016). Information adoption model, a review of the literature. Journal of Economics, Business and Management, 4(11), 618-622.
46. Wisker, Z. L., & McKie, R. N. (2021). The effect of fake news on anger and negative word-of-mouth: Moderating roles of religiosity and conservatism. Journal of Marketing Analytics, 9(2), 144-153.