Search

Purpose – Extending the elaboration likelihood model (ELM), this study investigates the impact of social media influencers (SMI) on consumer well-being (CW) as well as the influence of CW on purchase intention. Design/methodology/approach – A between-subjects experiment (macro- vs mega-influencer) was conducted to assess the proposed hypotheses. A total of 190 consumers participated in the experiment, and SmartPLS 3.3 was used for multigroup analyses. Findings – Overall, argument quality (AQ), source's credibility (SC) and influencer's kindness positively predict CW, and CW predicts purchase intention. It was also found that SC is more important when information comes from a mega-influencer, whilst kindness is essential for a macro-influencer. Practical implications – The results of this study imply that CW should be an essential component of influencer marketing strategy. Marketing managers should hire credible and kind influencers who can produce quality arguments. Additionally, the selection of SMI (macro- vs mega-influencer) should be aligned with the marketing objective and type of persuasion required. Originality/value – This is one of the early attempts to extend ELM by introducing influencer kindness as a peripheral cue. Moreover, the study offers novelty by examining the effects of influencer characteristics (AQ, SC and kindness) on CW and comparing these effects across macro- and mega-influencers. 研究目的 – 藉著擴展詳儘可能性模型, 本研究擬探討網絡紅人對消費者福祉的影響, 以及消費者福祉對購買意圖的影響。 研究方法 – 研究人員進行被試間實驗 (中網紅對大型網紅) , 以對提出的假設進行評價。190名消費者參與實驗, 研究人員使用SmartPLS 3.3 進行多群組分析。 研究結果 – 總的來說, 論點品質、來源可信度和網紅的仁慈體貼, 均能積極預測消費者福祉, 而消費者福祉亦可預測購買意圖。研究人員亦發現, 若資訊是來自大型網紅的話, 來源可信度則更形重要, 而對中網紅來說, 仁慈體貼則是不可或缺的。 研究帶來的啟示 – 研究結果暗示, 消費者福祉應是網紅市場營銷戰略的基本要素。市場經理應僱用可靠、仁慈體貼、並能提出優質論點的網紅。而且, 網絡紅人 (中網紅對大型網紅) 的挑選, 必須與營銷目標和說服的種類互相協調。 研究的原創性 – 本研究為早期的嘗試, 利用引進網絡紅人的仁慈體貼作為周邊線索, 來擴展詳儘可能性模型。另外, 本研究探討網絡紅人的特徵 (論點品質、來源可信度和仁慈體貼) 會如何影響消費者福祉; 研究人員亦跨中網紅和大型網紅, 對這些影響進行比較, 就此而言, 本研究提供了創新的研究意念。

Among various non-pharmaceutical control measures, Digital Contact Tracing (DCT) based on information technology is an effective tool to combat COVID-19, but the penetration rates in major countries of the world are not optimal. To better prepare for any future emerging infectious disease outbreaks, it is necessary to examine the decision process of DCT acceptance among the public. Guided by the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM), this study compares the central and peripheral routes that motivate DCT acceptance. The research also examines how these decision processes moderate individuals' perceived susceptibility to COVID-19 and through self-efficacy. This research adopts a survey methodology for collecting 284 valid responses and utilizes structural equation modeling to verify the proposed hypotheses. The results demonstrate that perceived benefits develop along a dual route of argument quality and source credibility. Perceived benefits, in turn, enable individuals' willingness to disclose personal information to DCT. Perceived susceptibility and self-efficacy also moderate the influences of argument quality on perceived benefits. The findings imply that healthcare authorities should employ differing strategies to foster individuals' perceived benefits of DCT with the goal of boosting DCT penetration rates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This research aimed to assess the quality of arguments and informal reasoning abilities of pre-service science teachers concerning various socio-scientific issues, utilizing dilemma cards. The case study method, a qualitative research approach, was employed, involving 12 pre-service science teachers. Participants completed the dilemma cards over a 12-week period. The analytical procedure for these cards incorporated content analysis. Findings from the study indicated that participants were often unable to construct a comprehensive argument that considered all argumentative components, such as claim, evidence, support, and rebuttal. While some participants displayed a modicum of success in the components of claim, evidence, and support, they typically provided insubstantial examples in the rebuttal dimension. Upon examining the nature of arguments based on context, it was discerned that the quality of arguments about nuclear energy differed slightly from those about other socio-scientific issues. Nevertheless, context did not significantly influence the quality of arguments for 11 other socio-scientific topics. Furthermore, the study noted variations in the dimensions of informal reasoning across different socio-scientific issues. It was subsequently inferred that the context might influence informal reasoning. Additionally, it was observed that participants tended to focus more on the ecological dimensions of informal reasoning and less on the ethical-aesthetic dimensions. Recommendations were put forth to enhance both the quality of arguments and informal reasoning abilities.

In the examination of what makes for a strong argument, a stream of research has used normative criteria from argumentation theory to compare high-quality with low-quality arguments. While a larger body of research on argument quality and persuasion has involved US and UK samples, no study with these samples has reported on the impact of argument quality manipulated with normative criteria. Therefore, an experiment was conducted in which American (N = 237) and British (N = 231) participants assessed several claims supported by arguments varying in quality. Results show that high-quality arguments lead to higher claim acceptance than low-quality arguments for British but not for Americans. The results are discussed in the context of a meta-analysis of similar studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Theory: Argumentation is crucial for all academic disciplines. Nevertheless, a lack of argumentation skills among students is evident. Two core aspects of argumentation are the recognition of argument structures (e.g., backing up claims with premises, according to the Toulmin model) and the recognition of fallacies. As both aspects may be related to content knowledge, students studying different subjects might exhibit different argumentation skills depending on whether the content is drawn from their own or from a foreign subject. Therefore, we developed an instrument to measure the recognition of both argument structures and fallacies among the groups of preservice teachers and business economics students in both their respective domains (pedagogy and economics), and a neutral domain (sustainability). For the recognition of fallacies, we distinguished between congruent and incongruent fallacies. In congruent fallacies, the two aspects of argument quality, i.e., deductive validity and inductive strength, provide converging evidence against high argument quality. In incongruent fallacies, these two aspects diverge. Based on dual process theories, we expected to observe differences in the recognition of congruent and incongruent fallacies. Aims: We investigated whether these two abilities are domain-specific and whether the recognition of fallacies depends on the congruence of two aspects of argument quality. Methods: 267 preservice teachers and 56 business economics students participated in the study. For the recognition of argument structures, participants assigned the five statements constituting one argument to the corresponding component according to the Toulmin model. For the recognition of fallacies, we created arguments and incorporated a common fallacy into some of them: formal fallacy, overgeneralization, irrelevance, or circularity. Participants rated whether the argument was cogent or not, which was followed by a brief justification. Results: Domain specificity could not be found for either of both abilities. For the recognition of fallacies, two dimensions were found: a congruent dimension (formal fallacies and overgeneralizations) and an incongruent dimension (irrelevance and circularity). Discussion: The instrument measures the recognition of both argument structures and fallacies in these two groups across domains. The recognition of fallacies differs depending on whether the deductive validity and the inductive strength of the argument are equally indicative of argument quality or not. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

TheoryArgumentation is crucial for all academic disciplines. Nevertheless, a lack of argumentation skills among students is evident. Two core aspects of argumentation are the recognition of argument structures (e.g., backing up claims with premises, according to the Toulmin model) and the recognition of fallacies. As both aspects may be related to content knowledge, students studying different subjects might exhibit different argumentation skills depending on whether the content is drawn from their own or from a foreign subject. Therefore, we developed an instrument to measure the recognition of both argument structures and fallacies among the groups of preservice teachers and business economics students in both their respective domains (pedagogy and economics), and a neutral domain (sustainability). For the recognition of fallacies, we distinguished between congruent and incongruent fallacies. In congruent fallacies, the two aspects of argument quality, i.e., deductive validity and inductive strength, provide converging evidence against high argument quality. In incongruent fallacies, these two aspects diverge. Based on dual process theories, we expected to observe differences in the recognition of congruent and incongruent fallacies.AimsWe investigated whether these two abilities are domain-specific and whether the recognition of fallacies depends on the congruence of two aspects of argument quality.Methods267 preservice teachers and 56 business economics students participated in the study. For the recognition of argument structures, participants assigned the five statements constituting one argument to the corresponding component according to the Toulmin model. For the recognition of fallacies, we created arguments and incorporated a common fallacy into some of them: formal fallacy, overgeneralization, irrelevance, or circularity. Participants rated whether the argument was cogent or not, which was followed by a brief justification.ResultsDomain specificity could not be found for either of both abilities. For the recognition of fallacies, two dimensions were found: a congruent dimension (formal fallacies and overgeneralizations) and an incongruent dimension (irrelevance and circularity).DiscussionThe instrument measures the recognition of both argument structures and fallacies in these two groups across domains. The recognition of fallacies differs depending on whether the deductive validity and the inductive strength of the argument are equally indicative of argument quality or not.

Vaccination-related information is important for the public to increase vaccine acceptance intention, while the guidance and persuasion effects of information are influenced by approaches to information presentation. Thus, this study has focused on news media, an important source of vaccination-related dissemination, and aimed to investigate how different presentations of news influence an individual's COVID-19 vaccine intention. Moreover, whether the cultural values individuals possess would influence the persuasive effects of news information was also considered in our study. A web-based experiment among 310 participants employing 2 (news framing: rights frame vs. obligation frame) × 2 (argument quality: high argument quality vs. low argument quality) × 2 (individual–collective orientation: individualism vs. collectivism) design was conducted in this study. Data were analyzed through a series of analyses of variance (ANOVAs) in SPSS 26. The results show that argument quality had a significant positive impact on individuals' psychological acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine. The results also show that the rights framework was significantly more persuasive than the obligation framework. Furthermore, for individualistic individuals, news information with high argument quality and a rights frame was the most persuasive. These findings may help guide the writing of news, thereby improving vaccine uptake, enhancing the public's health literacy, and facilitating the implementation of vaccination policies during and after a pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This research aimed to assess the quality of arguments and informal reasoning abilities of pre-service science teachers concerning various socio-scientific issues (SSI), utilizing dilemma cards. The case study method, a qualitative research approach, was employed, involving 12 pre-service science teachers. Participants completed the dilemma cards over a 12-week period. The analytical procedure for these cards incorporated content analysis. Findings from the study indicated that participants were often unable to construct a comprehensive argument that considered all argumentative components, such as claim, evidence, support, and rebuttal. While some participants displayed a modicum of success in the components of claim, evidence, and support, they typically provided insubstantial examples in the rebuttal dimension. On examining the nature of arguments based on context, it was discerned that the quality of arguments about nuclear energy differed slightly from those about other SSI. Nevertheless, context did not significantly influence the quality of arguments for 11 other socio-scientific topics. Furthermore, the study noted variations in the dimensions of informal reasoning across different SSI. It was subsequently inferred that the context might influence informal reasoning. In addition, it was observed that participants tended to focus more on the ecological dimensions of informal reasoning and less on the ethical-aesthetic dimensions. Recommendations were put forth to enhance both the quality of arguments and informal reasoning abilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study aims to identify preservice science teachers’ opinions and argument quality regarding the COVID-19 vaccines. The research was conducted with 18 4th year preservice science teachers studying at the Department of Science Education. The study was conducted with phenomenological design and the data were obtained using focus group interview and dilemma cards. The data obtained from the focus group interview were analyzed with content analysis. The argument components in the dilemma cards were analyzed using the “Argumentation Model Rating Scale” developed by Hiğde and Aktamış (2017). The findings obtained from the focus group interview showed that the majority of preservice science teachers were undecided about vaccination. The minority of the participants who expressed positive views on COVID-19 vaccines mentioned the health, social and scientific aspects of the vaccine (protection, reducing the rate of disease, facilitating the fight against epidemic, contributing to the advancement of science, etc.). On the other hand, it was underlined by the presevice science teachers that the COVID-19 vaccines still contained uncertainties (side effects, lack of protection on its own, lack of confidence, etc.) and created feelings of unease due to the new technological products. The results obtained from the dilemma cards demonstrated that the preservice science teachers were able to present their opinions (claims) and evidence successfully and were partially successful in supporting them. However, it was concluded that the preservice science teachers could not achieve the same level of success in the rebuttal part while presenting their arguments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this research is to fill gaps in the literature by focusing on gender differences in perceptions of phishing susceptibility among Malaysian university students. Based on the Heuristic-Systematic Model of information processing, a theoretical model of victimization by instant message phishing was developed. Smart PLS-SEM was used to analyse 386 valid responses from an anonymous online survey. The findings reveal significant gender differences in systematic phishing processing, with male students emphasizing argument quality and female students emphasizing message involvement. This study discovered that persuasive phishing messages increase the likelihood of instant messaging phishing victimization in university students. When a phishing message has a high level of message involvement, Internet users have intents (a favourable attitude) to share personal information online. The findings provide insights that should be communicated to students early on to help them scrutinize message authenticity and fine-tune their security knowledge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

According to Mercier and Sperber (2009, 2011, 2017), people have an immediate and intuitive feeling about the strength of an argument. These intuitive evaluations are not captured by current evaluation methods of argument strength, yet they could be important to predict the extent to which people accept the claim supported by the argument. In an exploratory study, therefore, a newly developed intuitive evaluation method to assess argument strength was compared to an explicit argument strength evaluation method (the PAS scale; Zhao et al., 2011), on their ability to predict claim acceptance (predictive validity) and on their sensitivity to differences in the manipulated quality of arguments (construct validity). An experimental study showed that the explicit argument strength evaluation performed well on the two validity measures. The intuitive evaluation measure, on the other hand, was not found to be valid. Suggestions for other ways of constructing and testing intuitive evaluation measures are presented.

Internet access and social media led to an astronomical spike in eWOM. Tourism is an information-intensive industry, and travelers frequently use eWOM for travel decisions. Nevertheless, there is a lack of an integrated scale to measure the eWOM Usefulness for influencing cognitive, affective, and conative attitudes in leisure travel. The present study develops and validates an eWOM usefulness scale using the scientific scale development process to fill the research gap. A two-stage study (study 1: EFA; study 2: Measurement Model Assessment – CFA) confirmed the reliability and validity of the scale. Findings suggested the role of eWOM volume, eWOM valence, argument quality, and source credibility in eWOM usefulness. This study is a forerunner in using the stimulus organism response (SOR) lens to explain eWOM usefulness in leisure travel. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An analysis of the relationship between discourse and cognition in the context of middle school science teaching is provided in this study. Teacher-led questions, cognitive demands and patterns of interaction were analysed for the discourse side of the study. The students' argumentation quality was explored for the cognition side of the study. Participants were an elementary science teacher and 19 seventh grade students. Socio-cultural discourse analysis was conducted in two phases: systematic observation (coding and counting) and episode analysis (contextual in-depth exploration). The student-led argument quality was found to be reduced due to close-ended triadic dialogues when the teacher overtly displayed follow-up evaluations and follow-up explanations. The argument quality was fostered considerably when the teacher staged timely and relevant follow-up questions, since more dialogic space on the side of the students had been created. The students' argumentations were observed at the highest levels when the teacher used low (e.g. understand) and high (e.g. analyse and evaluate) cognitively demanding questions together. These findings were also supported by the episode analysis, which aimed at representing the discursive-contextual compositions of the in-class implementations. The results showed that discourse (questions' cognitive demands and patterns of interaction) and cognition (students' argumentation quality) were found to be associated. Suggestions were made for science teachers and science teacher educators. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Crowdfunding has emerged as a new form of financing. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the differences in empathy and trust of potential donors when they find an Instagram content promoting charitable crowdfunding campaign using different types of message appeals and different levels of argument quality. This study is aimed to test whether issue involvement moderates the effect of empathy and trust on the intention to donate. To do so, an experimental design was conducted involving 180 undergraduate students from one university in Indonesia. The participants were Instagram active users who were familiar about crowdfunding. Result show Instagram content using altruistic appeal will generate stronger empathy compared to those using egoistic appeal, but different message appeals did not result significant difference on trust. Different levels of argument quality also generated different empathy and trust. Content with strong argument tends to produce stronger empathy and trust than those with weak argument. The empathy and trust of potential donors can have a positive impact on their intention to donate. In this study, it was found that issue involvement did not moderate the effect of empathy and trust on the potential donors' intention to donate.

Vaccination-related information is important for the public to increase vaccine acceptance intention, while the guidance and persuasion effects of information are influenced by approaches to information presentation. Thus, this study has focused on news media, an important source of vaccination-related dissemination, and aimed to investigate how different presentations of news influence an individual’s COVID-19 vaccine intention. Moreover, whether the cultural values individuals possess would influence the persuasive effects of news information was also considered in our study. A web-based experiment among 310 participants employing 2 (news framing: rights frame vs. obligation frame) × 2 (argument quality: high argument quality vs. low argument quality) × 2 (individual–collective orientation: individualism vs. collectivism) design was conducted in this study. Data were analyzed through a series of analyses of variance (ANOVAs) in SPSS 26. The results show that argument quality had a significant positive impact on individuals’ psychological acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine. The results also show that the rights framework was significantly more persuasive than the obligation framework. Furthermore, for individualistic individuals, news information with high argument quality and a rights frame was the most persuasive. These findings may help guide the writing of news, thereby improving vaccine uptake, enhancing the public’s health literacy, and facilitating the implementation of vaccination policies during and after a pandemic.

We employ the elaboration likelihood model (ELM) to investigate the dual influences of the central route (i.e., argument quality) and the peripheral route (i.e., interactivity) on investment-related judgments and decisions. In a between-subject experiment using 297 participants from Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) to proxy for nonprofessional investors, we examine the joint effects of interactivity, argument quality, and news valence. Our results indicate that nonprofessional investors are more likely to invest more in firms when the argument quality of a disclosure is strong and accompanied by interactive presentations. Further, PLS analyses examining perceptions of interactivity provide additional insights about the mechanisms of the effects. This research contributes to the disclosure literature by demonstrating the influence of increased interactivity in disclosure settings, and to the accounting information systems research on interactivity in financial reporting by demonstrating the importance of considering perceived interactivity in addition to the provision of actual interactive design features. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The study objective was to examine the mediating role of source credibility and argument quality in the relationship between e-WOM and tourist visit intentions. As e-WOM in the form of comments, reviews, opinions, suggestions and recommendation are largely available in the online space, it has been found crucial to investigate the quality and credibility of such information. Elaboration Likelihood Model has been used to build the research model or framework. The study findings suggest the mediating role of source credibility and argument quality in the relationship between e-WOM and tourist visit intention. The study reveals that traveler seeks highly credible sources and information quality before deciding on any travel related products and services. The mediating role of source credibility and argument quality from ELM theory has been investigated from domestic tourism perspective.

This study adopts a research model founded on multiple theories to investigate potential influence of source credibility (SC), argument quality (AQ), self-efficacy (SEF), tolerance of ambiguity (TA), locus of control (LOC), and perceived usefulness of information (PUI) on individuals' information-seeking behavior (ISB) of disaster information from social networking sites (SNSs). The structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis of 312 global responses reveals that, overall, individuals infrequently seek behavior about disaster information from SNSs. In addition, the source and content quality (SAQ) and SEF that emerge are significant antecedents of PUI, which in turn is a significant determinant of ISB. These findings and their implications are further discussed in the paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With social media becoming the primary channel for travelers to acquire travel-related information, tourism service providers are increasingly partnering with social media influencers (SMIs) as part of their digital marketing strategy. The present study investigates the effectiveness of SMIs by examining the role that two message factors—argument quality and sponsorship status—have on travelers' perceptions of a hotel's commitment to sustainability and their intention to stay at the hotel. Results from four studies show that when eco-friendly hotels sponsor SMIs, an attribute-value message is more effective than a simple recommendation message in influencing travelers' perceptions and intentions. Given the latest Federal Trade Commission regulations regarding sponsorship disclosure practices, the findings offer valuable insights for tourism providers using SMIs. The study findings suggest that SMIs should create sponsored messages that provide rational and objective information about the hotel's sustainability practices to stimulate travelers' related cognitions and persuade them to patronize the hotel. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Empirical research has shown that high-quality arguments according to criteria from argumentation theory lead to higher claim acceptance than low-quality arguments. However, this relationship was not observed in some cultural settings. This leads to the question whether criteria for high-quality arguments are culturally variable or universal. Therefore, adding to existing research on sensitivity to quality criteria for the argument from authority and the argument from generalization conducted mainly in Western cultural contexts, an experiment was run in Turkey (N = 307). Results showed that Turkish participants were sensitive to the quality of arguments: claim acceptance was higher when high-quality variants were used than when low-quality variants were used. While not neglecting potential cultural variability, these data add to the findings that there might be some level of universality in sensitivity to criteria for argument quality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article has been removed at the request of Professor Safnil Arsyad because the criteria for research output required by the research funder have yet to fulfill.

The purpose of this study was to test the determinants affecting the credibility of online reviews. In this model, the relationships between argument quality and peripheral cue and credibility of online reviews were evaluated. The measurement model and the conceptual model depicting hypothesized relationships were evaluated based on responses from 460 customers using multiple linear regression analysis, accordingly. After the data collection process was completed, all data were put into SPSS 20. The process of checking and analyzing the data sequentially follows: reliability test, EFA factor analysis, Correlation analysis and Multiple linear regression analysis. Initially, the scale was assessed by Cronbach's Alpha and EFA. Then, the correlation coefficient test was used to check the linear relationship between the independent and dependent variables. The results from the study indicated the accuracy, completeness, review quantity, review consistency, product/ service rating, and website reputation were accepted and all of them had positive effects on review credibility. This shows, shoppers are very interested in completeness, the full information as well as necessary evidence to help shoppers assess the truthfulness and accuracy of the information more easily. At the same time, the website reputation also helps increase the credibility of the reviews and buyers tend to believe in online reviews if the website has a good reputation. Basically, the research completed its original purpose of identifying factors that affect the credibility of online reviews.

People are often advised to project confidence with their bodies and voices to convince others. Prior research has focused on the high and low thinking processes through which vocal confidence signals (e.g., fast speed, falling intonation, low pitch) can influence attitude change. In contrast, this research examines how the vocal confidence of speakers operates under more moderate elaboration levels, revealing that falling intonation only benefits persuasion under certain circumstances. In three experiments, we show that falling (vs. rising) vocal intonation at the ends of sentences can signal speaker confidence. Under moderate elaboration conditions, falling (vs. rising) vocal intonation increased message processing, bolstering the benefit of strong over weak messages, increasing the proportion of message-relevant thoughts, and increasing thought-attitude correspondence. In sum, the present work examined an unstudied role of vocal confidence in guiding persuasion, revealing new processes by which vocal signals increase or fail to increase persuasion., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

The study objective was to examine the mediating role of source credibility and argument quality in the relationship between e-WOM and tourist visit intentions. As e-WOM in the form of comments, reviews, opinions, suggestions and recommendation are largely available in the online space, it has been found crucial to investigate the quality and credibility of such information. Elaboration Likelihood Model has been used to build the research model or framework. The study findings suggest the mediating role of source credibility and argument quality in the relationship between e-WOM and tourist visit intention. The study reveals that traveler seeks highly credible sources and information quality before deciding on any travel related products and services. The mediating role of source credibility and argument quality from ELM theory has been investigated from domestic tourism perspective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The current research examined how people infer whether novel sources are biased based on their ability to justify their position. Across nine studies, when sources provided weak versus strong arguments, message recipients perceived the source as more biased. This effect held controlling for other possible inferences, such as lack of expertise or untrustworthiness. This research also examined whether perceived source bias on one message can carry over to ambiguously related future persuasive messages. Studies 6 to 8 demonstrated that perceivers use both the perceived bias from an initial message and the argument quality of the second message to determine a source's bias on the new topic. Finally, perceived bias carried over from an initial message can influence persuasion on a second topic (Study 9). Ultimately, the present work provides insight into factors that affect perceived bias and the dynamic consequences of those perceptions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Consumer & Consumption Research / Tüketici ve Tüketim Araştırmaları Dergisi is the property of Beta Basim Yayin Dagitim and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Open to reason: how good are people at reasoning with arguments? A phenomenon that has become clearer through social media is that people often gather with like-minded others to strengthen their opinions. In such circumstances, people do not respond in a reasonable way to the arguments of others or even completely ignore the opinions of those who think differently. But what does it mean to reason reasonably with arguments? What exactly can we expect from people? And how good are we at reasoning with arguments? Studies have shown that people can be sensitive to norms for reasonable arguments. Standpoints are more likely to be accepted if they are supported by arguments that meet normative standards. Whereas people may thus be open to reason, dealing with norms can be culture dependent. This finding creates a fascinating field of tension between absolute norms and the relativity of cultures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Argument quality has become an important variable that promotes consumers' decision-making based on online reviews. It has two dimensions, perceived informativeness and perceived persuasiveness. Adopting dual-process theory, this study examines the effect of these two dimensions of argument quality on review adoption. Moreover, it investigates whether the relationships between argument quality and review adoption differ based on product type and review type. According to the multi-group analysis result, for attribute-centric reviews, search products have a better fit than experience products in the relationship of perceived informativeness and perceived persuasiveness, also for the relationship of perceived informativeness on review adoption, while experience products have a better fit than search products for the relationship of perceived persuasiveness on review adoption. For benefitcentric reviews, search products and experience products have no significant difference in any of the relationships. Furthermore, the result reveals that perceived persuasiveness mediates perceived informativeness and review adoption. The findings contribute to the understanding of the information adoption model with different review types and product types and help shopping websites develop better strategies for product recommendation reviews. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this study is to investigate the inter-dynamics of young consumers' information use, information adoption, motivation, and restaurant food purchase intention in an online environment. The study applied a mixed-method research design comprising of 20 in-depth interviews and 250 surveys among the young consumers. After the scale validation process through confirmatory factor analysis, structural equation modeling was applied to test the proposed model. This research carries empirical and theoretical implications by showing the dynamics of interrelationships between information adoption and online shopping motivation that mediate the relationships between information use and online food purchase intention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study examines the factors affecting consumers' perceptions regarding the credibility of YouTuber-generated product content (YGPC) and its perceived usefulness, and how such perceptions can influence attitudes and intentions towards YGPC use for purchase decisions. This study applies the maximum likelihood-based structural equation modeling approach to an online survey of 315 YouTuber followers. Our findings highlight the importance of investigating the dimensions of source credibility to understand better how YouTuber-generated content use affects attitude and behavior intentions regarding product purchase decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Consumer-generated online reviews of credence service providers, such as doctors, have become common on platforms such as Yelp and RateMDs. Yet doctors have challenged the legitimacy of these platforms on the grounds that consumers do not have the expertise required to evaluate the quality of the medical care they receive. This challenge is supported by the economics of information literature, which has characterized doctors as a credence service, meaning that consumers cannot evaluate quality even after consumption. Are interventions needed to ensure that consumers are not misled by these reviews? Data from real online reviews shows that many of the claims made in real reviews of credence service providers focus on experience attributes, such as promptness, which consumers can typically evaluate, rather than credence attributes, such as knowledge. Follow-up experiments show that consumers are more likely to believe experience claims (vs. credence claims) made by other consumers, claims that are supported by data, and longer reviews even if they are not more informative. The authors discuss implications for consumers and credence service providers and possible policy interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mobile-health (m-health) applications have been implemented in Indonesia to provide easier access to health services and information; however, to date, only a relatively small number of people have used m-health applications. Users of m-health applications tend to use them again if they feel satisfied and if their goals have been achieved. Despite this, there has been no research in Indonesia to explain the effect of m-health user satisfaction on user loyalty. As such, this study aimed to analyze the influence of argument quality, source credibility, and health consciousness on m-health user satisfaction, routine use intention, and loyalty. The study used a quantitative approach in which a survey was conducted involving a total of 520 respondents in Indonesia who had used m-health applications at least once. The data was processed and analyzed using covariance-based structural equation modeling (CB-SEM) and Amos 21.0 software. The results of this study indicated that argument quality and m-health source credibility affect user satisfaction with m-health applications. This study also indicated that health consciousness and user satisfaction influence users’ routine use intention and loyalty in relation to m-health application use. The study addressed gaps in previous studies by providing insight about the factors that can increase the loyalty of m-health users, especially in Indonesia.

Persuasion research involves identifying speaker, message, and receiver factors that influence persuasiveness. Based on Probabilistic Persuasion Theory (PPT), two experiments tested whether attribute degree centrality and attribute tie strength affect persuasion in decision making contexts. A semantic network learning task was used to experimentally manipulate both attribute dimensions in receivers' semantic networks. Participants received arguments with attributes varying in degree centrality and tie strength. In Experiment 1 (N = 48), both attribute dimensions affected choice behavior. Experiment 2 (N = 168) increased the tie strength manipulation and replicated the tie strength effect on choice. Across both experiments, degree centrality and tie strength yielded additional effects on perceived argument quality and source credibility but did not affect choice confidence or latencies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this study, we utilize a kernel theory of knowledge adoption model and propose a novel text analytic framework to classify the usefulness of solutions in online knowledge communities. The study combines multiple disciplines (behavioral, empirical, design science, and technical) to tackle an important and relevant business problem: how to effectively manage an online knowledge repository and identify useful solutions. Our framework can be implemented in online knowledge communities to improve users' experience of searching for useful knowledge. The proposed framework has the potential to guide the development of customer-facing chatbots, which understand human-language questions and return helpful answers immediately. Online communities and social collaborative platforms have become an increasingly popular avenue for knowledge sharing and exchange. In these communities, users often engage in informal conversations responding to questions and answers, and over time, they produce a huge amount of highly unstructured and implicit knowledge. How to effectively manage the knowledge repository and identify useful solutions thus becomes a major challenge. In this study, we propose a novel text analytic framework to extract important features from online forums and apply them to classify the usefulness of a solution. Guided by the design science research paradigm, we utilize a kernel theory of the knowledge adoption model, which captures a rich set of argument quality and source credibility features as the predictors of information usefulness. We test our framework on two large-scale knowledge communities: the Apple Support Community and Oracle Community. Our extensive analysis and performance evaluation illustrate that the proposed framework is both effective and efficient in predicting the usefulness of solutions embedded in the knowledge repository. We highlight the theoretical implications of the study as well as the practical applications of the framework to other domains. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The idea of resolving dispute through the exchange of arguments and reasons has been central to society for millennia. We exchange arguments as a way of getting at the truth in contexts as diverse as science, the court room, and our everyday lives. In democracies, political decisions should be negotiated through argument, not deception, or even worse, brute force. If argument is to lead to the truth or to good decisions, then some arguments must be better than others and 'argument strength' must have some meaningful connection with truth. Can argument strength be measured in a way that tracks an objective relationship with truth and not just mere persuasiveness? This article describes recent developments in providing such measures. The ability to measure argument quality is of central importance not just in our everyday lives, but to scientific endeavors ranging from psychology and philosophy, to computer science and artificial intelligence. Classical logic provides fundamental constraints on argument quality, but most everyday informal argument is already in line with these constraints. This leaves the majority of quality concerns unaddressed. A Bayesian, probabilistic framework significantly expands quality standards for argument evaluation. It not only provides a treatment of the traditional catalogue of logical fallacies, it offers normative guidance that is quantitative, computationally explicit, and can be used for education. Consideration of how both logic and probability work to provide measures of argument quality suggests that 'consistency' and 'relevance' are two sides of the same coin. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The anger activism model proposes that efficacy moderates the effect of anger on message processing and persuasion. This study tested the model's predictions using a 2 (efficacy) × 2 (anger) × 2 (argument quality) experiment (N = 267) in the context of student protests. We found that when anger was high, people processed higher quality arguments more positively at levels of high efficacy but less positively at levels of low efficacy. A moderated moderated mediation model showed that these cognitions mediated the effect of the experimental interaction on intentions to protest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this research is to assess how digitalized information posted on social media about tourism destinations (TDs) impacts on consumers, with a particular focus on the role of brand familiarity and the source type and content style of online reviews. Two studies were conducted. First, using an online survey-based 2 × 2 × 2 experimental design with a sample of 548 consumers, we examined the interaction effects of review content style, brand familiarity and source of the post on the perceived informativeness and persuasiveness of online reviews about TDs. The findings showed that, when reviews referred to specific features of TDs (brand), firm-generated content (FGC) was more persuasive and informative than user-generated content (UGC) but, in general reviews, UGC was more persuasive and informative than FGC. A second study, using a sample of 136 consumers, assessed: (i) the impact of review content style and destination familiarity on the perceived diagnosticity (credibility and helpfulness) of online reviews; and (ii) the effects of review content style on visual attention paid, and customer engagement, using eye-tracking and electroencephalography. The findings showed that specific reviews are more diagnostic than general reviews, the positive effect of specific reviews on credibility being stronger for familiar destinations. • Two studies: an online survey-based 2 x 2 x 2 experimental design and an eye-tracking and electroencephalography study. • When reviews referred to specific features of TDs, FGC was more persuasive and informative than UGC. • In general reviews, UGC was more persuasive and informative than FGC. • Specific reviews are more diagnostic than general reviews. • The positive effect of specific reviews on credibility is stronger for familiar destinations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The definition and the assessment of the quality of argumentative texts has become an increasingly crucial issue in education, classroom discourse, and argumentation theory. The different methods developed and used in the literature are all characterized by specific perspectives that fail to capture the complexity of the subject matter, which remains ill-defined and not systematically investigated. This paper addresses this problem by building on the four main dimensions of argument quality resulting from the definition of argument and the literature in classroom discourse: dialogicity, accountability, relevance, and textuality (DART). We use and develop the insights from the literature in education and argumentation by integrating the frameworks that capture both the textual and the argumentative nature of argumentative texts. This theoretical background will be used to propose a method for translating the DART dimensions into specific and clear proxies and evaluation criteria. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bringing together probabilistic persuasion theory and semantic network models, past research introduced the number and strength of direct connections in a semantic network as a theory-based criterion of argument quality. In two experiments, the present research provides evidence that this argument quality criterion also increases persuasion in decision-making contexts. Experiment 1 revealed that highly central attributes—embedded in advertising arguments advocating for choice of a focal product—were more persuasive, increased choice confidence, and were perceived as better arguments than attributes low in centrality. Experiment 2 nearly mirrored Experiment 1 by revealing main effects of attribute centrality on respondent choice behavior and perceived argument quality. In addition, an interaction effect of centrality and age on participant choice latencies was observed. In comparison to other age brackets, young adult participants had significantly lower choice latencies when choices were based on highly central attributes as opposed to lowly central attributes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Two experiments investigated the effects of manipulating quality of evidence that supports arguments on message persuasiveness. The evidence quality was systematically manipulated by violating one or two of the relevant normative criteria. In experiment one, participants were presented with arguments embedded within a persuasive message. All supportive evidence was of either high, medium or low quality (between-subjects design). In experiment two, each argument was presented separately and was supported with high, medium and low quality evidence (within-subjects design). The recipients were insensitive to manipulations of evidence quality in the first, but sensitive to it in the second experiment. The findings are discussed with reference to conceptual and methodological issues in the study of attitude change.