Factors affecting YouTube influencer marketing credibility: a heuristic-systematic model

References

• Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84(5), 888–918.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alvarez, E. (2017, July 25). YouTube stars are blurring the lines between content and ads. Engadget. Retrieved from https://www.engadget.com/2017/07/25/youtube-influencers-sponsored-videos/
   Google Scholar
• Angulo, N. (2016, April 26). Brand marketers see higher engagement with micro-influencers: Survey. Retrieved from http://www.marketingdive.com/news/brand-marketers-see-higher-engagement-with-micro-influencers-survey/418109/
   Google Scholar
• Atkinson, D. R., Brady, S., & Casas, J. M. (1981). Sexual preference similarity, attitude similarity, and perceived counseling credibility and attractiveness. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28(6), 504–509.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aune, R. K., & Kikuchi, T. (1993). Effects of language intensity similarity on perceptions of credibility relational attributions, and persuasion. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 12(3), 224–238.
   Google Scholar
• Axsom, D., Yates, S., & Chaiken, S. (1987). Audience response as a heuristic cue in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(1), 30–40.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bhattacherjee, A., & Sanford, C. (2006). Influence processes for information technology acceptance: An elaboration likelihood model. MIS Quarterly, 30(4), 805–825.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braunsberger, K. (1996). The effects of source and product characteristics on persuasion (Doctoral dissertation). University of Texas at Arlington. Retrieved from http://dspace.nelson.usf.edu:8080/xmlui/handle/10806/6778
   Google Scholar
• Brodsky, S. L., Neal, T. M., Cramer, R. J., & Ziemke, M. H. (2009). Credibility in the courtroom: How likeable should an expert witness be? Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 37(4), 525–532.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, J., Broderick, A. J., & Lee, N. (2007). Word of mouth communication within online communities: Conceptualizing the online social network. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 21(3), 2–20.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3–5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burgoon, J. K., Bonito, J. A., Ramirez, A., Dunbar, N. E., Kam, K., & Fischer, J. (2002). Testing the interactivity principle: Effects of mediation, propinquity, and verbal and nonverbal modalities in interpersonal interaction. Journal of Communication, 52(3), 657–677.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Morris, K. J. (1983). Effects of need for cognition on message evaluation, recall, and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(4), 805–818.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), 752–766.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chaiken, S. (1987). The heuristic model of persuasion. In M. P. Zanna, J. M. Olson, & C. P. Herman (Eds.), Ontario symposium on personality and social psychology. Social influence: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 5, pp. 3–39). Hillsdale, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Chaiken, S., Liberman, A., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In J. S. Uleman & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 212–252). New York: Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chaiken, S., & Maheswaran, D. (1994). Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(3), 460–473.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, S., & Chaiken, S. (1999). The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 73–96). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cheung, C. M., Sia, C., & Kuan, K. K. Y. (2012). Is this review believable? A study of factors affecting the credibility of online consumer reviews from an ELM perspective. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 13(8), 618–635. Retrieved from https://login.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/login?URL=http://search.proquest.com/accountid=10920?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/1039704405?accountid=10920
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Choi, S. M., & Rifon, N. J. (2002). Antecedents and consequences of web advertising credibility: A study of consumer response to banner ads. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 3(1), 12–24.
   Google Scholar
• Chu, D. (2009). Collective behavior in YouTube: A case study of “Bus Uncle” online videos. Asian Journal of Communication, 19(3), 337–353.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chu, S. C., & Kamal, S. (2008). The effect of perceived blogger credibility and argument quality on message elaboration and brand attitudes: An exploratory study. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 8(2), 26–37.
   Google Scholar
• The Nielsen Company. (2015). Case study: The evolution of digital video viewership. Retrieved from http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/reports/2015/case-study-the-evolution-of-digital-video-viewership.html
   Google Scholar
• Crano, W. D. (1970). Effects of sex, response order, and expertise in conformity: A dispositional approach. Sociometry, 33(3), 239–252.
   Google Scholar
• Crisci, R., & Kassinove, H. (1973). Effect of perceived expertise, strength of advice, and environmental setting on parental compliance. The Journal of Social Psychology, 89(2), 245–250.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis, J. M., & Tuttle, B. M. (2013). A heuristic–systematic model of end-user information processing when encountering IS exceptions. Information & Management, 50(2–3), 125–133.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deloitte. (2016). Digital democracy survey: A multi-generational view of consumer technology, media and telecom trends (tenth edition). Deloitte. Retrieved from http://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/pages/technology-media-and-telecommunications/articles/digital-democracy-survey-generational-media-consumption-trends.html
   Google Scholar
• DeSarbo, W. S., & Harshman, R. A. (1985). Celebrity-brand congruence analysis. Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 8(1), 17–52.
   Google Scholar
• DeShields, O. W., Kara, A., & Kaynak, E. (1996). Source effects in purchase decisions: The impact of physical attractiveness and accent of salesperson. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13(1), 89–101.
   Google Scholar
• Eagly, A., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitude. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt, Brace, & Janovich.
   Google Scholar
• Eastin, M. S. (2001). Credibility assessments of online health information: The effects of source expertise and knowledge of content. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 6(4), JCM643.
   Google Scholar
• eMarketer. (2016). Number of YouTube users in the United States from 2014 to 2019 (in millions). Statista - The Statistics Portal. Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/469152/number-youtube-viewers-united-states/
   Google Scholar
• Ferguson, R. (2008). Word of mouth and viral marketing: Taking the temperature of the hottest trends in marketing. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 25(3), 179–182.
   Google Scholar
• Ferran, C., & Watts, S. (2008). Videoconferencing in the field: A heuristic processing model. Management Science, 54(9), 1565–1578.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fidelman, M. (2017, May 1). Here’s how to crush it with YouTube influencers. Entrepreneur. Retrieved from https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/293257
   Google Scholar
• Flynn, L. R., & Goldsmith, R. E. (1999). A short, reliable measure of subjective knowledge. Journal of Business Research, 46(1), 57–66.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fogg, B. J. (2003). Prominence-interpretation theory: Explaining how people assess credibility online. CHI ’03 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems (pp. 722–723). New York, NY, USA: ACM. doi:10.1145/765891.765951
   Google Scholar
• Fogg, B. J., Soohoo, C., Danielson, D. R., Marable, L., Stanford, J., & Tauber, E. R. (2003). How do users evaluate the credibility of web sites?: A study with over 2,500 participants. In Proceedings of the 2003 Conference on Designing for User Experiences (pp. 1–15). New York, NY: ACM. doi: 10.1145/997078.997097
   Google Scholar
• Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 39–50. doi:10.2307/3151312
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freberg, K., Graham, K., McGaughey, K., & Freberg, L. A. (2011). Who are the social media influencers? A study of public perceptions of personality. Public Relations Review, 37(1), 90–92.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fu, W. W. (2012). Selecting online videos from graphics, text, and view counts: The moderation of popularity bandwagons. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18(1), 46–61.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gao, Q., Tian, Y., & Tu, M. (2015). Exploring factors influencing Chinese user’s perceived credibility of health and safety information on Weibo. Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 21–31.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gass, R. H., & Seiter, J. S. (2011). Credibility. In K. Bowers, J. Zalesky, & M. Lentz (Eds.), Persuasion: Social influence and compliance gaining (4th ed., pp. 72–90). New York, NY: Pearson.
   Google Scholar
• Giffin, K. (1967). The contribution of studies of source credibility to a theory of interpersonal trust in the communication process. Psychological Bulletin, 68(2), 104–120.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldsmith, R. E., Lafferty, B. A., & Newell, S. J. (2000). The impact of corporate credibility and celebrity credibility on consumer reaction to advertisements and brands. Journal of Advertising, 29(3), 43–54.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greer, J. D. (2003). Evaluating the credibility of online information: A test of source and advertising influence. Mass Communication and Society, 6(1), 11–28.
   Google Scholar
• Grewal, D., Gotlieb, J., & Marmorstein, H. (1994). The moderating effects of message framing and source credibility on the price-perceived risk relationship. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 145–153.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartmann, P., & Apaolaza-Ibáñez, V. (2012). Consumer attitude and purchase intention toward green energy brands: The roles of psychological benefits and environmental concern. Journal of Business Research, 65(9), 1254–1263.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haryacha, P. (2014, December 31). How to find the right YouTube influencers for your brand. TechCrunch. Retrieved from http://social.techcrunch.com/2014/12/31/how-to-find-the-right-youtube-influencers-for-your-brand/
   Google Scholar
• Heeter, C. (2000). Interactivity in the context of designed experiences. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 1(1), 3–14.
   Google Scholar
• Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Method, 6(1), 53–60.
   Google Scholar
• Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. H. (1953). Communication and persuasion; psychological studies of opinion change. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hussain, S., Ahmed, W., Jafar, R. M. S., Rabnawaz, A., & Jianzhou, Y. (2017). eWOM source credibility, perceived risk and food product customer’s information adoption. Computers in Human Behavior, 66, 96–102.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jackson, D. (2018, January 9). Top 8 influencer marketing trends for 2018. Sprout. Retrieved from https://sproutsocial.com/insights/influencer-marketing/
   Google Scholar
• Jung, E. H., Walsh-Childers, K., & Kim, H. S. (2016). Factors influencing the perceived credibility of diet-nutrition information web sites. Computers in Human Behavior, 58, 37–47.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kamins, M. A. (1990). An investigation into the “match-up” hypothesis in celebrity advertising: When beauty may be only skin deep. Journal of Advertising, 19(1), 4–13.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaplan, M. F., & Miller, C. E. (1987). Group decision making and normative versus informational influence: Effects of type of issue and assigned decision rule. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(2), 306–313.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, S. J., Bickart, B. A., Brunel, F. F., & Pai, S. (2012). Can your business have 1 million friends? Understanding and using blogs as one-to-one mass media (SSRN scholarly paper No. ID 2045346). Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network.
   Google Scholar
• Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Lange, P. G. (2007). Publicly private and privately public: Social networking on YouTube. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 361–380.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lederman, R., Fan, H., Smith, S., & Chang, S. (2014). Who can you trust? Credibility assessment in online health forums. Health Policy and Technology, 3(1), 13–25.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, C. Y. (2013). Persuasive messages on information system acceptance: A theoretical extension of elaboration likelihood model and social influence theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(1), 264–275.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, R., & Suh, A. (2015). Factors influencing information credibility on social media platforms: Evidence from Facebook pages. Procedia Computer Science, 72, 314–328.
   Google Scholar
• Lin, X., Spence, P. R., & Lachlan, K. A. (2016). Social media and credibility indicators: The effect of influence cues. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 264–271.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, Y., & Shrum, L. J. (2002). What is interactivity and is it always such a good thing? Implications of definition, person, and situation for the influence of interactivity on advertising effectiveness. Journal of Advertising, 31(4), 53–64.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Long, M. M., & Chiagouris, L. (2006). The role of credibility in shaping attitudes toward nonprofit websites. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 11(3), 239–249.
   Google Scholar
• Lui, L., & Standing, L. (1989). Communicator credibility: Trustworthiness defeats expertness. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 17(2), 219–221.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luo, X. R., Zhang, W., Burd, S., & Seazzu, A. (2013). Investigating phishing victimization with the heuristic–systematic model: A theoretical framework and an exploration. Computers & Security, 38, 28–38.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacKenzie, S. B., & Lutz, R. J. (1989). An empirical examination of the structural antecedents of attitude toward the ad in an advertising pretesting context. The Journal of Marketing, 53(2), 48–65.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacKenzie, S. B., Lutz, R. J., & Belch, G. E. (1986). The role of attitude toward the ad as a mediator of advertising effectiveness: A test of competing explanations. Journal of Marketing Research, 23(2), 130–143.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maddux, J. E., & Rogers, R. W. (1980). Effects of source expertness, physical attractiveness, and supporting arguments on persuasion: A case of brains over beauty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(2), 235–244.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maheswaran, D., & Chaiken, S. (1991). Promoting systematic processing in low-motivation settings: Effect of incongruent information on processing and judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(1), 13–25.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maheswaran, D., Mackie, D. M., & Chaiken, S. (1992). Brand name as a heuristic cue: The effects of task importance and expectancy confirmation on consumer judgments. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1(4), 317–336.
   Google Scholar
• Main, S. (2017, March 30). Micro-influencers are more effective with marketing campaigns than highly popular accounts. AdWeek. Retrieved from http://www.adweek.com/digital/micro-influencers-are-more-effective-with-marketing-campaigns-than-highly-popular-accounts/
   Google Scholar
• McCracken, G. (1989). Who is the celebrity endorser? Cultural foundations of the endorsement process. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(3), 310–321.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCroskey, J. C., Richmond, V. P., & Daly, J. A. (1975). The development of a measure of perceived homophily in interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1(4), 323–332.
   Google Scholar
• McGinnies, E., & Ward, C. D. (1980). Better liked than right: Trustworthiness and expertise as factors in credibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6(3), 467–472.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGuire, W. J. (1985). Attitudes and attitude change. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 233–346). New York, NY: Random House.
   Google Scholar
• McMillan, S. J., & Hwang, J. S. (2002). Measures of perceived interactivity: An exploration of the role of direction of communication, user control, and time in shaping perceptions of interactivity. Journal of Advertising, 31(3), 29–42.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Metzger, M. J. (2007). Making sense of credibility on the web: Models for evaluating online information and recommendations for future research. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 2078–2091.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Metzger, M. J., & Flanagin, A. J. (2013). Credibility and trust of information in online environments: The use of cognitive heuristics. Journal of Pragmatics, 59, 210–220.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Metzger, M. J., Flanagin, A. J., Eyal, K., Lemus, D. R., & McCann, R. M. (2003). Credibility for the 21st century: Integrating perspectives on source, message, and media credibility in the contemporary media environment. Annals of the International Communication Association, 27(1), 293–335.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, G. R., & Baseheart, J. (1969). Source trustworthiness, opinionated statements, and response to persuasive communication. Speech Monographs, 36(1), 1–7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mun, Y. Y., Yoon, J. J., Davis, J. M., & Lee, T. (2013). Untangling the antecedents of initial trust in web-based health information: The roles of argument quality, source expertise, and user perceptions of information quality and risk. Decision Support Systems, 55(1), 284–295.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muthén, B., & Muthén, L. (2018). Mplus user’s guide and diagrammer documentation. Retrieved from https://www.statmodel.com/ugexcerpts.shtml
   Google Scholar
• O’Keefe, D. J. (1990). Persuasion: Theory and practice. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Ohanian, R. (1990). Construction and validation of a scale to measure celebrity endorsers’ perceived expertise, trustworthiness, and attractiveness. Journal of Advertising, 19(3), 39–52.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ohanian, R. (1991). The impact of celebrity spokespersons’ perceived image on consumers’ intention to purchase. Journal of Advertising Research, 31(1), 46–54.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1979). Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(10), 1915–1926.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Issue involvement as a moderator of the effects on attitude of advertising content and context. Advances in Consumer Research, 8, 20–24. http://acrwebsite.org/volumes/9252/volumes/v08/NA-08
   Google Scholar
• Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1984). The effects of involvement on responses to argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(1), 69–81.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123–162.
   Google Scholar
• Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Goldman, R. (1981). Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(5), 847–855.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1999). The elaboration likelihood model: Current status and controversies. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 41–72). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pornpitakpan, C. (2004). The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of five decades’ evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(2), 243–281.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1998). Breaching or building social boundaries? SIDE-effects of computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 25(6), 689–715.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (2000). The formation of group norms in computer‐mediated communication. Human Communication Research, 26(3), 341–371.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rains, S. A., & Karmikel, C. D. (2009). Health information-seeking and perceptions of website credibility: Examining web-use orientation, message characteristics, and structural features of websites. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 544–553.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reichelt, J., Sievert, J., & Jacob, F. (2014). How credibility affects eWOM reading: The influences of expertise, trustworthiness, and similarity on utilitarian and social functions. Journal of Marketing Communications, 20(1–2), 65–81.
   Google Scholar
• Reinhard, M.-A., & Sporer, S. L. (2008). Verbal and nonverbal behaviour as a basis for credibility attribution: The impact of task involvement and cognitive capacity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(3), 477–488.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reysen, S. (2005). Construction of a new scale: The Reysen likability scale. Social Behavior and Personality: an International Journal, 33(2), 201–208.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rieh, S. Y., & Belkin, N. J. (2000). Interaction on the web: Scholars’ judgment of information quality and cognitive authority. In Proceedings of the 63th Annual Meeting of ASIS (Vol. 37, pp. 25–38). Retrieved from http://rieh.people.si.umich.edu/~rieh/papers/rieh_asis2000.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Rifon, N. J., Choi, S. M., Trimble, C. S., & Li, H. (2004). Congruence effects in sponsorship: The mediating role of sponsor credibility and consumer attributions of sponsor motive. Journal of Advertising, 33(1), 30–42.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryu, Y., & Kim, S. (2015). Testing the heuristic/systematic information-processing model (HSM) on the perception of risk after the Fukushima nuclear accidents. Journal of Risk Research, 18(7), 840–859.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sallam, M. A. A., & Wahid, N. A. (2012). Endorser credibility effects on Yemeni male consumer’s attitudes towards advertising, brand attitude and purchase intention: The mediating role of attitude toward brand. International Business Research, 5(4), 55–66.
   Google Scholar
• Slater, M. D., & Rouner, D. (1996). How message evaluation and source attributes may influence credibility assessment and belief change. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 73(4), 974–991.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, D. (2014). Charlie is so “English”-like: Nationality and the branded celebrity person in the age of YouTube. Celebrity Studies, 5(3), 256–274.
   Google Scholar
• Spears, N., & Singh, S. N. (2004). Measuring attitude toward the brand and purchase intentions. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 26(2), 53–66.
   Google Scholar
• Stavrositu, C., & Sundar, S. S. (2008). If Internet credibility is so iffy, why the heavy use? The relationship between medium use and credibility. Cyber Psychology & Behavior, 11(1), 65–68.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Steuer, J. (1992). Defining virtual reality: Dimensions determining telepresence. Journal of Communication, 42(4), 73–93.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strolovitch, D. Z. (2006). Do interest groups represent the disadvantaged? Advocacy at the intersections of race, class, and gender. Journal of Politics, 68(4), 894–910.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sundar, S. S. (2008). The MAIN model: A heuristic approach to understanding technology effects on credibility. In M. J. Metzger & A. J. Flanagin (Eds.), Digital media, youth, and credibility (pp. 73–100). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sussman, S. W., & Siegal, W. S. (2003). Informational influence in organizations: An integrated approach to knowledge adoption. Information Systems Research, 14(1), 47–65.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teng, S., Khong, K. W., Goh, W. W., & Chong, A. Y. L. (2014). Examining the antecedents of persuasive eWOM messages in social media. Online Information Review, 38(6), 746–768.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teven, J. J. (2008). An examination of perceived credibility of the 2008 presidential candidates: Relationships with believability, likeability, and deceptiveness. Human Communication, 11(4), 391–408.
   Google Scholar
• Tracker, M. (2018). MTurk tracker: Gender tracker. Retrieved from http://demographics.mturk-tracker.com/#/gender/all
   Google Scholar
• Voss, K. E., Spangenberg, E. R., & Grohmann, B. (2003). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian dimensions of consumer attitude. Journal of Marketing Research, 40(3), 310–320.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, A. (2005a). The effects of expert and consumer endorsements on audience response. Journal of Advertising Research, 45(4), 402–412.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, A. (2005b). Integrating and comparing others’ opinions. Journal of Website Promotion, 1(1), 105–129.
   Google Scholar
• Wang, Z., Walther, J. B., Pingree, S., & Hawkins, R. P. (2008). Health information, credibility, homophily, and influence via the Internet: Web sites versus discussion groups. Health Communication, 23(4), 358–368.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wathen, C. N., & Burkell, J. (2002). Believe it or not: Factors influencing credibility on the web. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(2), 134–144.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watts, S., Shankaranarayanan, G., & Even, A. (2009). Data quality assessment in context: A cognitive perspective. Decision Support Systems, 48(1), 202–211.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wood, W., Kallgren, C. A., & Preisler, R. M. (1985). Access to attitude-relevant information in memory as a determinant of persuasion: The role of message attributes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21(1), 73–85.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu, J., & Chang, Y. (2005). Towards understanding members’ interactivity, trust, and flow in online travel community. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 105(7), 937–954.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu, T. Y., & Lin, C. A. (2017). Predicting the effects of eWOM and online brand messaging: Source trust, bandwagon effect and innovation adoption factors. Telematics and Informatics, 34(2), 470–480.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu, Q., Schmierbach, M., Bellur, S., Ash, E., Oeldorf-Hirsch, A., & Kegerise, A. (2012). The effects of “friend” characteristics on evaluations of an activist group in a social networking context. Mass Communication and Society, 15(3), 432–453.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang, S. F. (2015). An eye-tracking study of the elaboration likelihood model in online shopping. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 14(4), 233–240.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yoon, K., Kim, C. H., & Kim, M. S. (1998). A cross-cultural comparison of the effects of source credibility on attitudes and behavioral intentions. Mass Communication and Society, 1(3–4), 153–173.
   Google Scholar
• YouTube. (2016). Statistics - YouTube. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/yt/press/statistics.html
   Google Scholar
• Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(3), 341–352.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1994). The personal involvement inventory: Reduction, revision, and application to advertising. Journal of Advertising, 23(4), 59–70.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zha, X., Yang, H., Yan, Y., Liu, K., & Huang, C. (2018). Exploring the effect of social media information quality, source credibility and reputation on informational fit-to-task: Moderating role of focused immersion. Computers in Human Behavior, 79, 227–237.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang, K. Z., Zhao, S. J., Cheung, C. M., & Lee, M. K. (2014). Examining the influence of online reviews on consumers’ decision-making: A heuristic–Systematic model. Decision Support Systems, 67, 78–89.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhou, T., Lu, Y., & Wang, B. (2016). Examining online consumers’ initial trust building from an elaboration likelihood model perspective. Information Systems Frontiers, 18(2), 265–275.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar