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。

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.

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]

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.

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 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.

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]

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]

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.

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 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]

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.

Virtue argumentation theory (VAT) has been charged of being incomplete, given its alleged inability to account for argument cogency in virtue-theoretical terms. Instead of defending VAT against that challenge, I suggest it is misplaced, since it is based on a premise VAT does not endorse, and raises an issue that most versions of VAT need not consider problematic. This in turn allows distinguishing several varieties of VAT, and clarifying what really matters for them.

Past research suggests that the human ability to detect social engineering deception is very limited, and it is even more limited in the virtual environment of social networking sites (SNS) such as Facebook. At the organizational level, research suggests that social engineers could succeed even among those organizations that identify themselves as being aware of social engineering techniques. This may be partly due to the complexity of human behaviors in failing to recognize social engineering tricks in SNSs. Due to the vital role that persuasion and perception play on users’ decision to accept or reject social engineering tricks, this paper aims to investigate the impact of message characteristics on users’ susceptibility to social engineering victimization on Facebook. In doing so, we investigate the role of the central route of persuasion, peripheral route of persuasion, and perceived risk on susceptibility to social engineering on Facebook. In addition, we investigate the mediation effects between the explored factors, and whether there is any relationship between the effectiveness of them and users’ demographics.

The growth of online commerce has given consumers a number of convenient options to shop from. This has led to the proliferation of e-commerce players that offer variety of products and services with customer-centric terms and conditions. However, absence of avenues to test the product(s) before buying, shoppers perceive inherent risk associated with online buying, especially related to products' quality and features, terms and conditions of sales, etc. To overcome this pre-purchase dissonance and compensate for the lack of previous experience, they look for reliable information and guidance. Hence, to make decisions, e-buyers rely on the reviews provided by other shoppers. Therefore, it becomes imperative for e-retailers to determine antecedent factors that influence the adoption of online reviews. Using heuristicsystematic model, this study has identified the relative significance of information credibility, argument quality, quantity sufficiency and source credibility in influencing the adoption of reviews available online. It was observed that the two categories of influencers impact the reviews' adoption albeit through the two mediators - perceived usefulness and perceived value of reviews. Theoretical and practical implications have also been highlighted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper addresses the question of whether matching a persuasive message to a recipient's self-concept can enhance message processing. A large body of experiments within the Elaboration likelihood model proved that framing a message so as to be perceived as selfrelevant led to more careful argument scrutiny. In this research, we matched the messages with previously assessed need for cognition - tendency to engage in and enjoy effortful cognitive tasks. Two possible sources of motivation to process a persuasive message were hereby confronted: dispositional (cognitive style) and situational (matching). Results showed a significant attitude change, but the main hypothesis was not confirmed: matched messages did not produce more argument processing activity than the mismatched. Manipulations did not have any significant effects on message processing of the high need for cognition participants. Contrary to expectations, participants low in their need for cognition elaborated the message more carefully when it was mismatched, that is when the message addressed them as persons inclined to careful thinking. Results can be explained within the framework of self-affirmation theory, which argues that providing people with an opportunity to affirm their sense of selfworth makes them more open to persuasion attempts, as well as more objective. Results are discussed from a wider theoretical and empirical perspective of motivation.

Due to the high perceived risk and low switching costs, it is critical for online vendors to foster consumers' initial trust in order to facilitate their online transactions. The extant research has focused on using the technology acceptance model to examine initial trust, and has seldom disclosed the processes through which initial trust develops. Drawing on the elaboration likelihood model, this research examined online consumers' initial trust building when visiting a new website for the first time. The results indicated that initial trust develops along dual routes including a central route represented by argument quality and a peripheral route represented by source credibility. Self-efficacy significantly moderates the effect of argument quality on initial trust. In addition, we found the direct effects of both cultural variables-uncertainty avoidance and individualism-on initial trust. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Managers deliver influencing strategies to motivate employees and shape their behavior intentions related to information system acceptance. Although prior studies have acknowledged external variables in shaping employees' perceptions, they do not explain how the processes or paths of external variables affect their system acceptance. By integrating technology acceptance model, flow theory, and extending elaboration likelihood model, this study confirms the second-order formative measure of playfulness with two first-order formative constructs, challenge arousal, and skill control. Second, two persuasive messages result in different influencing routes on employees' responses. Source credibility of persuasive messages has positive influence on playfulness, while argument quality of persuasive messages has positive influence on perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness. Third, perceived ease of use has positive impact on playfulness, perceived usefulness, and attitude. Fourth, attitude plays a mediating role in the relationship of playfulness-behavior intention and perceived usefulness-behavior intention. Finally, perceived usefulness is a stronger determinant of attitude than playfulness and perceived ease of use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]