With the ever-increasing popularity of online consumer reviews, understanding what makes an online review believable has attracted increased attention from both academics and practitioners. Drawing on the elaboration likelihood model (ELM), this study examines four information cues used to evaluate the credibility of online reviews: Argument quality, source credibility, review consistency, and review sidedness, under different levels of involvement and expertise. We conducted an online survey that involved users of Epinions.com, a popular online consumer review website, to test the research model empirically. Consistent with previous research, the results reveal that argument quality, a central cue, was the primary factor affecting review credibility. Participants also relied on peripheral cues such as source credibility, review consistency, and review sidedness when evaluating online consumer reviews. Review sidedness had a stronger impact on review credibility when the recipient had a low involvement level and a high expertise level. However, the other interaction effects were not significant. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of these results.

Group polarization is the tendency of people to become more extreme in their thinking following group discussion. It may be beneficial to some, but detrimental to other, organizational decisions. This study examines how computer-mediated communication (CMC) may be associated with group polarization. Two laboratory experiments were carried out. The first experiment, conducted in an identified setting, demonstrated that removal of verbal cues might not have reduced social presence sufficiently to impact group polarization, but removal of visual cues might have reduced social presence sufficiently to raise group polarization. Besides confirming the results of the first experiment, the second experiment showed that the provision of anonymity might also have reduced social presence sufficiently to raise group polarization. Analyses of process data from both experiments indicated that the reduction in social presence might have increased group polarization by causing people to generate more novel arguments and engage in more one-upmanship behavior. Collectively, process and outcome data from both experiments reveal how group polarization might be affected by level of social presence. Specifically, group discussion carried out in an unsupported setting or an identified face-to-face CMC setting tends to result in weaker group polarization. Conversely, group discussion conducted in an anonymous face-to-face CMC setting or a dispersed CMC setting (with or without anonymity) tends to lead to stronger group polarization. Implications of these results for further research and practice are provided.

A laboratory experiment was carried out to partially test the task-medium fit proposition in a GSS environment. Communication medium was varied using a face-to-face GSS and a dispersed GSS setting. Task type was varied using an intellective and a preference task. Group decision outcome variables of interest were (actual and perceived) decision quality, decision time, decision satisfaction, and decision process satisfaction. With the intellective task, there were no significant differences between face-to-face GSS and dispersed GSS groups for all group decision outcome variables. With the preference task, face-to-face GSS groups performed significantly better than dispersed GSS groups for all group decision outcome variables. These findings suggest that group decision outcomes in a GSS environment tend to be adversely affected when the communication medium is too lean for the task but not when the communication medium is too rich for the task. Consequences of providing groups with too rich and too lean a communication medium for their task are discussed. Implications of these findings, and other related results, for practice and for future revisions of media richness theory are explored.

No abstract

No abstract