Online Social Influence: Past, Present, and Future

References

• Abbassi, Z., Aperjis, C., & Huberman, B. (2012). Swayed by friends or by the crowd? In K. Aberer, A. Flache, W. Jager, L. Liu, J. Tang & C. Gueret (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Social Informatics (pp. 365-378). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-35386-4_27
   Google Scholar
• Ackland, R. (2013). Web social science: Concepts, data and tools for social scientists in the digital age. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Aral, S., & Walker, D. (2011). Creating social contagion through viral product design: A randomized trial of peer influence in networks. Management Science, 57, 1623–1639. doi:10.1287/mnsc.1110.1421
   Google Scholar
• Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. In H. Guetzkow (Ed.), Groups, leadership and men: Research in human relations (pp. 177–188). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Press.
   Google Scholar
• Asch, S. E. (1955). Opinions and social pressure. Scientific American, 193, 31–35. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican1155–31
   Google Scholar
• Bakshy, E., Karrer, B., & Adamic, L. A. (2009). Social influence and the diffusion of user-created content. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM Conference on Electronic commerce (pp. 325–334). doi:10.1145/1566374.1566421
   Google Scholar
• Bakshy, E., Hofman, J. M., Mason, W. A., & Watts, D. J. (2011). Everyone’s an influencer: Quantifying influence on Twitter. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (pp. 65–74). doi:10.1145/1935826.1935845
   Google Scholar
• Bakshy, E., Rosenn, I., Marlow, C., & Adamic, L. (2012). The role of social networks in information diffusion. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on World Wide Web (pp. 519–528). doi:10.1145/2187836.2187907
   Google Scholar
• Banerjee, A. V. (1992). A simple model of herd behavior. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107, 797–817. doi:10.2307/2118364
   Google Scholar
• Barnes, S. B. (2008). Understanding social media from the media ecological perspective. In E. A. Konjin, S. Utz, M. Tanis & S. B. Barnes (Eds.), Mediated Interpersonal Communication (pp. 14–33). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Berger, J. (2013). Contagious: Why things catch on. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Berger, J., & Milkman, K. L. (2012). What makes online content viral? Journal of Marketing Research, 49, 192–205. doi:10.1509/jmr.10.0353
   Google Scholar
• Berlo, D. K. (1960). The process of communication: An introduction to theory and practice. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
   Google Scholar
• Bikhchandani, S., Hirshleifer, D., & Welch, I. (1992). A theory of fads, fashion, custom, and cultural change as informational cascades. Journal of Political Economy, 100, 992–1026. doi:10.1086/261849
   Google Scholar
• Bond, R., & Smith, P. B. (1996). Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis of studies using Asch’s (1952b, 1956) line judgment task. Psychological Bulletin; Psychological Bulletin, 119, 111–137. doi:10.1037/0033–2909.119.1.111
   Google Scholar
• Bond, R., Fariss, C. J., Jones, J. J., Kramer, A. D., Marlow, C., Settle, J. E., & Fowler, J. H. (2012). A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization. Nature, 489, 295–298. doi:10.1038/nature11421
   Google Scholar
• Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. New York: Academic Press. Brown, J. J., & Reingen, P. H. (1987). Social ties and word-of-mouth referral behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 14, 350–362. doi:10.1086/209118
   Google Scholar
• Campbell, J. D., & Fairey, P. J. (1989). Informational and normative routes to conformity: The effect of faction size as a function of norm extremity and attention to the stimulus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(3), 457–468. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.57.3.457
   Google Scholar
• Celen, B., Kariv, S., & Schotter, A. (2010). An experimental test of advice and social learning. Management Science, 56, 1687–1701. doi:10.1287/mnsc.1100.1228
   Google Scholar
• Centola, D. (2010). The spread of behavior in an online social network experiment. Science, 329, 1194–1197. doi:10.1126/science.1185231
   Google Scholar
• Cha, M., Haddadi, H., Benevenuto, F., & Gummadi, K. P. (2010). Measuring user influence in Twitter: The million follower fallacy. In Proceedings of the 4th International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (pp. 10–17). Retrieved from http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM10/paper/view/1538
   Google Scholar
• Chatterjee, P. (2001). Online reviews: Do consumers use them? In M. C. Gilly & J. Meyers-Levy (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 28, pp. 129–133). Valdosta, GA: Association for Consumer Research.
   Google Scholar
• Chen, M., Ma, Q., Li, M., Lai, H., Wang, X., & Shu, L. (2010). Cognitive and emotional conflicts of counter-conformity choice in purchasing books online: An event-related potentials study. Biological Psychology, 85, 437–445. doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2010.09.006
   Google Scholar
• Chen, Y., Wang, Q., & Xie, J. (2011). Online social interactions: A natural experiment on word of mouth versus observational learning. Journal of Marketing Research, 48, 238–254. doi:10.1509/jmkr.48.2.238
   Google Scholar
• Chen, Y.-F. (2008). Herd behavior in purchasing books online. Computers in Human
   Google Scholar
• Behavior, 24, 1977–1992. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2007.08.004 Chevalier, J. A., & Mayzlin, D. (2006). The effect of word of mouth on sales: Online book reviews. Journal of Marketing Research, 43, 345–354. doi:10.1509/jmkr.43.3.345 Christakis, N. A., & Fowler, J. H. (2007). The spread of obesity in a large social network over 32 years. New England Journal of Medicine, 357, 370–379. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa066082
   Google Scholar
• Christensen, H. S. (2011). Political activities on the Internet: Slacktivism or political participation by other means? First Monday, 16(2). doi:10.5210/fm.v16i2.3336 Cialdini, R. B. (2001). Influence: Science and practice (4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
   Google Scholar
• Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591–621. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015
   Google Scholar
• Cialdini, R. B., & Trost, M. R. (1998). Social influence: Social norms, conformity, and compliance. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 151–192). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Clee, M. A., & Wicklund, R. A. (1980). Consumer behavior and psychological reactance. Journal of Consumer Research, 6, 389–405. doi:10.1086/208782 Cormode, G., & Krishnamurthy, B. (2008). Key differences between Web 1.0 and Web 0. First Monday, 13(6). doi:10.5210/fm.v13i6.2125
   Google Scholar
• Culnan, M. J., & Markus, M. L. (1987). Information technologies. In F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 420–443). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness, and structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554–571. doi:10.1287/mnsc.32.5.554
   Google Scholar
• Dellarocas, C. (2003). The digitization of word of mouth: Promise and challenges of online feedback mechanisms. Management Science, 49, 1407–1424. doi:10.1287/mnsc.49.10.1407.17308
   Google Scholar
• Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 629–636. doi:10.1037/h0046408
   Google Scholar
• Dillard, J. P., & Pfau, M. (2002). The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Donath, J. (2007). Signals in social supernets. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 231–251. doi:10.1111/j.1083–6101.2007.00394.x
   Google Scholar
• Duan, W., Gu, B., & Whinston, A. B. (2008). Do online reviews matter? An empirical investigation of panel data. Decision Support Systems, 45, 1007–1016. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2008.04.001
   Google Scholar
• Dubrovsky, V. J., Kiesler, S., & Sethna, B. N. (1991). The equalization phenomenon: Status effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision-making groups. Human-Computer Interaction, 6, 119–146. doi:10.1207/s15327051hci0602_2
   Google Scholar
• Ellison, N. B., & Boyd, D. (2013). Sociality through social network sites. In W. H. Dutton (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of Internet studies (pp. 151–172). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Festinger, L. (1953). An analysis of compliant behavior. In M. Sherif & M. O. Wilson (Eds.), Group relations at the crossroads (pp. 232–256). New York: Harper.
   Google Scholar
• Fitzsimons, G. J., & Lehmann, D. R. (2004). Reactance to recommendations: When unsolicited advice yields contrary responses. Marketing Science, 23, 82–94. doi:10.1287/mksc.1030.0033
   Google Scholar
• Flanagin, A. J., Metzger, M. J., Pure, R., & Markov, A. (2011). User-generated ratings and the evaluation of credibility and product quality in ecommerce transactions. In Proceedings of the 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 1–10). doi:10.1109/HICSS.2011.474
   Google Scholar
• Godes, D., & Mayzlin, D. (2004). Using online conversations to study word-of-mouth communication. Marketing Science, 23, 545–560. doi:10.1287/mksc.1040.0071
   Google Scholar
• Godes, D., & Mayzlin, D. (2009). Firm-created word-of-mouth communication: Evidence from a field test. Marketing Science, 28, 721–739. doi:10.1287/mksc.1080.0444
   Google Scholar
• Godes, D., Mayzlin, D., Chen, Y., Das, S., Dellarocas, C., Pfeiffer, B., . . . Verlegh, P. (2005). The firm’s management of social interactions. Marketing Letters, 16, 415428. doi:10.1007/s11002-005-5902–4
   Google Scholar
• Guynn, J., & Chang, A. (2012, July 4). Yelp reviews: Can you trust them? Some firms game the system. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved October 29, 2012, from http://articles. latimes.com/2012/jul/04/business/la-fi-yelp-reviews-20120704
   Google Scholar
• Hollingshead, A. B. (1996). Information suppression and status persistence in group decision making the effects of communication media. Human Communication Research, 23, 193–219. doi:10.1111/j.1468–2958.1996.tb00392.x
   Google Scholar
• Hornikx, J., & O’Keefe, D. J. (2009). Adapting consumer advertising appeals to cultural values: A meta-analytic review of effects on persuasiveness and ad liking. In C. S. Beck (Ed.), Communication yearbook 33 (pp. 39–62). New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. H. (1953). Communication and persuasion. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Huffaker, D. A. (2010). Dimensions of leadership and social influence in online communities. Human Communication Research, 36, 593–617. doi:10.1111/j.1468–2958.2010.01390.x
   Google Scholar
• Hung, K. H., & Li, S. Y. (2007). The influence of eWOM on virtual consumer communities: Social capital, consumer learning, and behavioral outcomes. Journal of Advertising Research, 47, 485–495. doi:10.2501/S002184990707050X
   Google Scholar
• Iyengar, R., Han, S., & Gupta, S. (2009). Do friends influence purchases in a social network? (09–123). Marketing Unit Working Papers, Harvard Business School. Retrieved from http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/6185.html
   Google Scholar
• Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media. Business Horizons 53, 59–68. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003
   Google Scholar
• Katz, E., & Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1955). Personal influence. New York, NY: The Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kelman, H. C. (1958). Compliance, identification, and internalization: Three processes of attitude change. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2, 51–60. doi:10.1177/002200275800200106
   Google Scholar
• Kramer, A. D., Guillory, J., & Hancock, J. T. (2014). Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1320040111
   Google Scholar
• Kwak, H., Lee, C., Park, H., & Moon, S. (2010). What is Twitter, a social network or a news media? In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on World Wide Web (pp. 591–600). doi:10.1145/1772690.1772751
   Google Scholar
• Lasswell, H. D. (1948). The structure and function of communication in society. In
   Google Scholar
• L. Bryson (Ed.), The communication of ideas (pp. 37–51). New York, NY: Harper. Latane, B. (1981). The psychology of social impact. American Psychologist, 36, 343–356.doi:10.1037/0003–066X.36.4.343
   Google Scholar
• Latane, B., & Wolf, S. (1981). The social impact of majorities and minorities. Psychological Review, 88, 438–453. doi:10.1037/0033–295X.88.5.438 Lea, M., & Spears, R. (1992). Paralanguage and social perception in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 2, 321–341. doi:10.1080/10919399209540190
   Google Scholar
• Lee, E. J. (2012). That’s not the way it is: How user-generated comments on the news affect perceived media bias. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18, 32–45. doi:10.1111/j.1083–6101.2012.01597.x
   Google Scholar
• Mackiewicz, J. (2007). Reviewer bias and credibility in online reviews. In Proceedings of the 2007 Association for Business Communication Annual Convention. Retrieved from http://businesscommunication.org/CMS/Resources/proceedings/2007annual/2 007annual/06abc07.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Majchrzak, A., Faraj, S., Kane, G. C., & Azad, B. (2013). The contradictory influence of social media affordances on online communal knowledge sharing. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 19, 38–55. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12030
   Google Scholar
• Marwell, G., Oliver, P. E., & Prahl, R. (1988). Social networks and collective action: A theory of the critical mass III. The American Journal of Sociology, 94, 502–534. doi:10.1086/229028
   Google Scholar
• Marx, G. (2001). Identity and anonymity: Some conceptual distinctions and issues for research. In J. Caplan & J. Torpey (Eds.), Documenting individual identity: The development of state practices in the modern world (pp. 311–327). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. McGrath, J. E., & Hollingshead, A. B. (1994). Groups interacting with technology:
   Google Scholar
• Ideas, evidence, issues, and an agenda. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Metzger, M. J., Flanagin, A. J., & Medders, R. (2010). Social and heuristic approaches to credibility evaluation. Journal of Communication, 60, 413–439. doi: 10.1111/j.1460–2466.2010.01488.x
   Google Scholar
• Metzger, M. J., Flanagin, A. J., Eyal, K., Lemus, D. R., & McCann, R. M. (2003). Credibility in the 21st century: Integrating perspectives on source, message, and media credibility in the contemporary media environment. In P. Kalbfleisch (Ed.), Communication yearbook 27 (pp. 293–335). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Mizerski, R. W. (1982). An attribution explanation of the disproportionate influence of unfavorable information. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 301–310. doi:10.1086/208925
   Google Scholar
• Moe, W. W., & Trusov, M. (2011). The value of social dynamics in online product ratings forums. Journal of Marketing Research, 48, 444–456. doi:10.1509/jmkr.48.3.444
   Google Scholar
• Nadkarni, A., & Hofmann, S. G. (2012). Why do people use Facebook? Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 243–249. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.11.007
   Google Scholar
• Noar, S. M., Harrington, N. G., & Aldrich, R. S. (2009). The role of message tailoring in the development of persuasive health communication messages. In C. S. Beck (Ed.), Communication yearbook 33 (pp. 73–133). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• O’Keefe, D. J. (2013). The relative persuasiveness of different message types does not vary as a function of the persuasive outcome assessed. In E. L. Cohen (Ed.), Communication yearbook 37 (pp. 221–249). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• O’Keefe, D. J., & Jensen, J. D. (2006). The advantages of compliance or the disadvantages of noncompliance? A meta-analytic review of the relative persuasive effectiveness of gain-framed and loss-framed messages. In C. S. Beck (Ed.), Communication yearbook 30 (pp. 1–43). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Retrieved from http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/ews/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html
   Google Scholar
• Ott, M., Choi, Y., Cardie, C., & Hancock, J. T. (2011). Finding deceptive opinion spam by any stretch of the imagination. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (pp. 309–319). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
   Google Scholar
• Pan, B., Hembrooke, H., Joachims, T., Lorigo, L., Gay, G., & Granka, L. A. (2007). In Google we trust: Users’ decisions on rank, position, and relevance. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 801–823. doi:10.1111/j.1083–6101.2007.00351.x
   Google Scholar
• Papacharissi, Z. (2010). A networked self: Identity, community, and culture on social network sites. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1998). Breaching or building social boundaries? SIDE-effects of computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 25, 689–715. doi:10.1177/009365098025006006
   Google Scholar
• Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (2000). The formation of group norms in computer-mediated communication. Human Communication Research, 26, 341–371. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2000.tb00761.x
   Google Scholar
• Postmes, T., Spears, R., Sakhel, K., & De Groot, D. (2001). Social influence in computer-mediated communication: The effects of anonymity on group behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1243–1254. doi:10.1177/01461672012710001
   Google Scholar
• Prislin, R., & Crano, W. D. (2012). History of social influence research. In A. Krug-lanski & W. Stroebe (Eds.), The Handbook of the History of Social Psychology (pp. 321–339). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rainie, L., Kiesler, S., Kang, R., & Madden, M. (2013). Anonymity, privacy, and security online. Retrived from Pew Internet & American Life Project: http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/09/05/anonymity-privacy-and-security-online/
   Google Scholar
• Rhoads, K. V. L., & Cialdini, R. B. (2002). The business of influence: Principles that lead to success in commercial settings. In J. P. Dillard & M. Pfau (Eds.), The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice (pp. 513–542). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Rogers, E. M. (1962). Diffusion of innovations. New York, NY: Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schramm, W. (1954). How communication works. In W. Schramm (Ed.), The process and effects of communication (pp. 3–26). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
   Google Scholar
• Senecal, S., & Nantel, J. (2004). The influence of online product recommendations on consumers’ online choices. Journal of Retailing, 80, 159–169. doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2004.04.001
   Google Scholar
• Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
   Google Scholar
• Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Shriver, S. K., Nair, H. S., & Hofstetter, R. (2013). Social ties and user-generated content: Evidence from an online social network. Management Science, 59, 1425–1443. doi:10.1287/mnsc.1110.1648
   Google Scholar
• Strang, D., & Macy, M. W. (2001). In search of excellence: Fads, success stories, and adaptive emulation. American Journal of Sociology, 107, 147–182. doi:10.1086/323039
   Google Scholar
• Tanford, S., & Penrod, S. (1984). Social influence model: A formal integration of research on majority and minority influence process. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 189–225. doi:10.1037/0033–2909.95.2.189
   Google Scholar
• Vermeulen, I. E., & Seegers, D. (2009). Tried and tested: The impact of online hotel reviews on consumer consideration. Tourism Management, 30, 123–127. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2008.04.008
   Google Scholar
• Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective. Communication Research, 19, 52–90. 10.1177/009365092019001003
   Google Scholar
• Walther, J. B., & Jang, J. (2012). Communication processes in participatory websites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18, 2–15. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01592.x
   Google Scholar
• Walther, J. B., & Parks, M. R. (2002). Cues filtered out, cues filtered in: Computer-mediated communication and relationships. In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 529–563). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Walther, J. B., Liang, Y., Ganster, T., Wohn, D. Y., & Emington, J. (2012). Online reviews, helpfulness ratings, and consumer attitudes: An extension of congruity theory to multiple sources in Web 2.0. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18, 97–112. doi:10.1111/j.1083–6101.2012.01595.x
   Google Scholar
• Weisband, S. P., Schneider, S. K., & Connolly, T. (1995). Computer-mediated communication and social information: Status salience and status differences. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1124–1151. doi:10.2307/256623
   Google Scholar
• Wood, W. (2000). Attitude change: Persuasion and social influence. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 539–570. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.539
   Google Scholar
• Wood, W., Lundgren, S., Ouelette, J. A., Busceme, S., & Blackstone, T. (1994). Minority influence: A meta-analytic review of social influence processes. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 323–345. doi:10.1037/0033–2909.115.3.323
   Google Scholar
• Ye, Q., Law, R., Gu, B., & Chen, W. (2011). The influence of user-generated content on traveler behavior: An empirical investigation on the effects of e-word-of-mouth to hotel online bookings. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 634–639. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.04.014
   Google Scholar
• Zhang, J. Q., Craciun, G., & Shin, D. (2010). When does electronic word-of-mouth matter? A study of consumer product reviews. Journal of Business Research, 63, 1336–1341. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.12.011
   Google Scholar