4.5 Article

Consumer's Electronic Word-of-Mouth Adoption: The Trust Transfer Perspective

期刊

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/10864415.2019.1655207

关键词

AND PHRASES; Consumer trust; e-WOM; online reviews; online trust; source credibility; trustworthiness; trust transfer

资金

  1. Korea Research Foundation [2017S1A5A2A01023463]
  2. National Research Foundation of Korea [2017S1A5A2A01023463] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Consumers' trust in the source of an online review message is largely determined by the consumers' trustworthiness beliefs about the source that can potentially influence their willingness to engage in a transaction. While extant research examined consumer trust in a message source (i.e., a reviewer), little attention has been paid to the role of trust transfer within the review platform in forming source trustworthiness perceptions in the electronic word-of-mouth (e-WOM) context; source trustworthiness refers to the extent to which the composer of a review message deserves trust. It is the primary aim of this research to understand how trust transfer between related targets affects a consumer's assessment of online reviews. We empirically examined consumers' e-WOM adoption mechanism from the trust transfer perspective. We constructed a conceptual model based on the elaboration likelihood model and the trust transfer theory, and we tested the model using data collected from an online survey conducted on TripAdvisor.com. The findings revealed that trust is transferred from the review site to the community of reviewers, and then to a specific reviewer, but not directly from the review site to a specific reviewer. It was also found that consumer trust in a specific reviewer and review helpfulness both contribute to review adoption. This study offers some implications from these findings.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据