Coping with information in social media: The effects of network structure and knowledge on perception of information value

It is examined how network and knowledge affect perception of information value.Knowledge decreases individuals' sensitivity to information valence.Network density decreases individuals' sensitivity to information valence.The effects of knowledge vary depending on the density of a network. The explosive growth of social media has intrigued many scholars to inquire into why people willingly share information with others. However, relatively little attention has been devoted to how people determine which information they share in the networked environment. In this study, a 2 (network density - dense vs. sparse)i?2 (knowledge - expert vs. novice)i?3 (information valence - negative vs. neutral vs. positive) online experiment was performed to examine how the three factors interact and cross over in shaping individuals' perceptions of the value of information for themselves and for others in the network. Results show that individuals' perceptions of information value are influenced not just by their level of knowledge, but also by how the network environment is structured. Implications for the findings are discussed.

[1]  I. Ajzen,et al.  Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research , 1977 .

[2]  Dwayne D. Gremler,et al.  Electronic word-of-mouth via consumer-opinion platforms: What motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the Internet? , 2004 .

[3]  Theo M.M. Verhallen,et al.  Behavioral costs as determinants of cost perception and preference formation for gifts to receive and gifts to give , 1994 .

[4]  A. Tversky,et al.  Rational choice and the framing of decisions , 1990 .

[5]  Thomas W. Valente,et al.  Social Networks and Health , 2010 .

[6]  Stanley Wasserman,et al.  Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications , 1994 .

[7]  Dongyoung Sohn,et al.  Disentangling the Effects of Social Network Density on Electronic Word-of-Mouth (eWOM) Intention , 2009, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[8]  Emanuel Rosen,et al.  The Anatomy of Buzz: How to Create Word of Mouth Marketing , 2000 .

[9]  Brian Sternthal,et al.  The Moderating Effect of Knowledge and Resources on the Persuasive Impact of Analogies , 2001 .

[10]  Ingoo Han,et al.  The Effects of Consumer Knowledge on Message Processing of Electronic Word of Mouth via Online Consumer Reviews , 2008, ECIS.

[11]  L. Flynn,et al.  A Short, Reliable Measure of Subjective Knowledge , 1999 .

[12]  Seounmi Youn,et al.  Online Word-of-Mouth (or Mouse): An Exploration of Its Antecedents and Consequences , 2006, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[13]  J. Neumann,et al.  Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. , 1945 .

[14]  K. W. Phillips,et al.  The Effects of Categorically Based Expectations on Minority Influence: The Importance of Congruence , 2003, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[15]  P. Slovic The Construction of Preference , 1995 .

[16]  Ray Reagans,et al.  Network Structure and Knowledge Transfer: The Effects of Cohesion and Range , 2003 .

[17]  Susan J. Winter,et al.  Electronic Word-of-Mouth in Online Environments , 2006 .

[18]  Mira Lee,et al.  Electronic word of mouth (eWOM) , 2009 .

[19]  Peter H. Reingen,et al.  Social Ties and Word-of-Mouth Referral Behavior , 1987 .

[20]  Brian Sternthal,et al.  The Effects of Consumer Prior Knowledge and Processing Strategies on Judgments , 2010 .

[21]  Don Tapscott,et al.  Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything , 2006 .

[22]  Shu-Chuan Chu,et al.  Electronic Word-of-Mouth in Social Networking Sites: A Cross-Cultural Study of the United States and China , 2011 .

[23]  Jang-Sun Hwang,et al.  How Consumers Evaluate eWOM (Electronic Word-of-Mouth) Messages , 2009, Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw..

[24]  David K. Perry,et al.  Viral Marketing or Electronic Word-of-Mouth Advertising: Examining Consumer Responses and Motivations to Pass Along Email , 2004, Journal of Advertising Research.

[25]  M. Brucks The Effects of Product Class Knowledge on Information Search Behavior , 1985 .

[26]  Huiuk Yi,et al.  Effects of the Valence of eWOM on Perceived Message Credibility , 2010 .

[27]  Margaret A. Neale,et al.  Who's Really Sharing? Effects of Social and Expert Status on Knowledge Exchange Within Groups , 2003, Manag. Sci..

[28]  Morten T. Hansen,et al.  The Search-Transfer Problem: The Role of Weak Ties in Sharing Knowledge across Organization Subunits , 1999 .

[29]  Rajiv N. Rimal,et al.  How Behaviors are Influenced by Perceived Norms , 2005, Commun. Res..

[30]  Gabriel Weimann,et al.  On the Importance of Marginality: One More Step into the Two-Step Flow of Communication , 1982 .

[31]  P. V. Marsden,et al.  NETWORK DATA AND MEASUREMENT , 1990 .

[32]  P. Tetlock,et al.  Taboo Trade-Offs, Relational Framing, and the Acceptability of Exchanges , 2005 .

[33]  Pascale G. Quester,et al.  Online Discussion Groups as Socal Networks , 2006 .

[34]  Andrew D. Gershoff,et al.  Consumer Acceptance of Online Agent Advice: Extremity and Positivity Effects , 2003 .

[35]  Rik Pieters,et al.  Beyond the horse's mouth: Exploring acquisition and exchange utility in gift evaluation , 1998 .

[36]  Mark S. Granovetter The Strength of Weak Ties , 1973, American Journal of Sociology.

[37]  Jonathan K. Frenzen,et al.  Structure, Cooperation, and the Flow of Market Information , 1993 .

[38]  J. W. Hutchinson,et al.  Dimensions of Consumer Expertise , 1987 .

[39]  Mark B. Houston,et al.  Self-relevance and purchase goals: Mapping a consumer decision , 1996 .

[40]  Dong-Mo Koo,et al.  Effects of attribute and valence of e-WOM on message adoption: Moderating roles of subjective knowledge and regulatory focus , 2012, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[41]  Jonathan K. Frenzen,et al.  Purchasing Behavior in Embedded Markets , 1990 .