Other-generated information about specific targets available online reduces third parties’ uncertainty of strangers. Yet only information perceived as credible can shape their impressions. This study examines how impressions form after exposure to online recommendations, a type of other-generated information via LinkedIn, through credibility assessment of these recommendations. The source–target relationship and recommendation specificity were manipulated in a 2 × 2 between-subjects experiment (N = 213). Main effects for both independent variables were found. Perceived manipulation likelihood and perceived credibility of recommendation mediated the impact of the source–target relationship on impressions. Additionally, perceived familiarity with the target and perceived credibility of recommendation mediated the impact of recommendation specificity on impressions. This study extends warranting theory and highlights the impact of new communication technology on credibility assessment of online information and impression formation.
AskK.LandströmS. (2010). Why emotions matter: Expectancy violation and affective response mediate the emotional victim effect. Law and Human Behavior, 34, 392–401. doi:10.1007/s10979-009-9208-6
2.
BaruchY. (1996). Self performance appraisal vs direct-manager appraisal: A case of congruence. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 11, 50–65. doi:10.1108/02683949610129758
3.
BaymN. K. (2015). Personal connections in the digital age. Cambridge, England: Polity.
4.
BrandtA. C.VonkR.van KnippenbergA. (2009). Augmentation and discounting in impressions of targets described by third parties with ulterior motives. Social Cognition, 29, 210–220. doi:10.1521/soco.2011.29.2.210
5.
BurgoonJ. K.WaltherJ. B. (1990). Nonverbal expectancies and the evaluative consequences of violations. Human Communication Research, 17, 232–265. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1990.tb00232.x
6.
ChiangJ. K.-H.SuenH.-Y. (2015). Self-presentation and hiring recommendations in online communities: Lessons from LinkedIn. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 516–524. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.02.017
7.
ClairR. P. (1996). The political nature of the colloquialism, “a real job”: Implications for organizational socialization. Communication Monographs, 63, 249–267. doi:10.1080/03637759609376392
8.
DeAndreaD. (2014). Advancing warranting theory. Communication Theory, 24, 186–204. doi:10.1111/comt.12033
9.
DeAndreaD.CarpenterC. J. (2016). Measuring the construct of warranting value and testing warranting theory. Communication Research. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0093650216644022
10.
DeAndreaD.Van Der HeideB.EasleyN. (2015). How modifying third-party information affects interpersonal impressions and the evaluation of collaborative online media. Journal of Communication, 65, 62–78. doi:10.1111/jcom.12139
11.
DeAndreaD.Van Der HeideB.VendemiaM. A.VangM. H. (2015). How people evaluate online reviews. Communication Research. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0093650215573862
12.
FeldmanD. C.BeardenW. O.HardestyD. M. (2006). Varying the content of job advertisements. Journal of Advertising, 35, 123–141.
13.
FlanaginA. J.MetzgerM. J. (2007). The role of site features, user attributes, and information verification behaviors on the perceived credibility of web-based information. New Media & Society, 9, 319–342. doi:10.1177/1461444807075015
14.
FrenchW. L. (1982). The personnel management process (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
15.
GefenD. (2002). Customer loyalty in e-commerce. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 3, 27–51.
16.
GibbsJ. L.EllisonN. B.HeinoR. D. (2006). Self-presentation in online personals: The role of anticipated future interaction, self-disclosure, and perceived success in Internet dating. Communication Research, 33, 152–177. doi:10.1177/0093650205285368
17.
GuilloryJ.HancockJ. (2012). The effect of LinkedIn on deception in resumes. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15, 135–140. doi:10.1089/cyber.2011.0389
18.
HarrisM. M.SchaubroeckJ. (1988). A meta-analysis of self-supervisor, self-peer, and peer-supervisor ratings. Personnel Psychology, 41, 43–62. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1988.tb00631.x
19.
HayesA. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
20.
JacksonS. (1992). Message effects research: Principles of design and analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
21.
JensenM. L.AverbeckJ. M.ZhangZ.WrightK. B. (2013). Credibility of anonymous online product reviews: A language expectancy perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 30, 293–324. doi:10.2753/MIS0742-1222300109
22.
JonesQ.RavidG.RafaeliS. (2004). Information overload and the message dynamics of online interaction spaces: A theoretical model and empirical exploration. Information Systems Research, 15, 194–210. doi:10.1287/isre.1040.0023
23.
JudgeT. A.FerrisG. R. (1993). Social context of performance evaluation decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 80–105. doi:10.2307/256513
24.
KellyH. H. (1972). Causal schemata and the attribution process. In JonesE. E.KanouseD. E.KelleyH. H.NisbettR. E.ValinsS.WeinerB. (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior (pp. 151–174). Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
25.
KnouseS. B. (1982). The letter of recommendation: Length of letter and informational specificity. Paper presented at the meeting of the Midwestern Psychological association, Minneaplois, MN.
26.
KnouseS. B. (1983). The letter of recommendation: Specificity and favorability of information. Personnel Psychology, 36, 331–342. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1983.tb01441.x
27.
KohY. J.SundarS. S. (2010). Effects of specialization in computers, web sites, and web agents on e-commerce trust. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 68, 899–912. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2010.08.002
28.
LafrenièreM.SedikidesC.van TongerenD. R.DavisJ. (2016). On the perceived intentionality of self-enhancement. The Journal of Psychology, 156, 28–42. doi:10.1080/00224545.2015.1041447
29.
LeonardiP. (2015). Ambient awareness and knowledge acquisition: Using social media to learn “who knows what” and “who knows whom”. MIS Quarterly, 39, 747–762.
30.
LernerM.J.MillerD.T.HolmesJ.G. (1976). Deserving and the emergence of forms of justice. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 9, 133–162. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60060-X
31.
MetzgerM. J.FlanaginA. J.MeddersR. B. (2010). Social and heuristic approaches to credibility evaluation online. Journal of Communication, 60, 413–439. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01488.x
32.
MumbyD. K. (1987). The political functions of narrative in organizations. Communication Monographs, 54, 113–127. doi:10.1080/03637758709390221
33.
PapacharissiZ. (2009). The virtual geographies of social networks: A comparative analysis of Facebook, LinkedIn and ASmallWorld. New Media & Society, 11, 199–220. doi:10.1177/1461444808099577
34.
PetersS. H.GarciaR. (1962). Validity and dimensions of descriptive adjectives used in reference letters for engineering applicants. Personnel Psychology, 15, 279–286.
35.
RangeL. M.MenyhertA.WalshM. L.HardinK. N.EllisJ. B.CraddickR. (1991). Letters of recommendation: Perspectives, recommendations, and ethics. Professional Psychology, Research and Practice, 22, 389–392. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.22.5.389
36.
RapantaC.CantoniL. (2016). The LinkedIn endorsement game: Why and how professionals attribute skills to others. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/2329490616677044
37.
RobersonQ. M.CollinsC. J.OregS. (2005). The effects of recruitment message specificity on applicant attraction to organizations. Journal of Business and Psychology, 19, 319–339. doi:10.1007/s10869-004-2231-1
38.
RosenthalP. I. (1971). Specificity, verifiability, and message credibility. The Quarterly Journal of Speech, 57, 393–401. doi:10.1080/00335637109383084
39.
RotterJ. B. (1967). A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. Journal of Personality, 35, 651–665.
40.
SargeantJ.MannK.FerrierS. (2005). Exploring family physicians’ reactions to multisource feedback: Perceptions of credibility and usefulness. Medical Education, 39, 497–504. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02124.x
41.
SchultzJ. R.MaddoxK. B. (2013). Shooting the messenger to spite the message? Exploring reactions to claims of racial bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 346–358. doi:10.1177/0146167212475223
42.
SchwartzB. (1997). Psychology, idea technology, and ideology. Psychological Science, 8, 21–27. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1997.tb00539.x
43.
TomaC.HancockJ.EllisonN. (2008). Separating fact from fiction: An examination of deceptive self-presentation in online dating profiles. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1023–1036. doi:10.1177/0146167208318067
44.
UtzS. (2010). Show me your friends and I will tell you what type of person you are: How one’s profile, number of friends, and type of friends influence impression formation on social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 15, 314–335. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2010.01522.x
45.
UtzS.MatzatU.SnijdersC. (2009). Online reputation systems: The effects of feedback comments and reactions on building and rebuilding trust in online auctions. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 13, 95–118.
46.
Van DijckJ. (2013). “You have one identity”: Performing the self on Facebook and LinkedIn. Media, Culture & Society, 35, 199–215. doi:10.1177/0163443712468605
47.
WallaceD.WalkerJ.LopezT.JonesM. (2009). Do word of mouth and advertising messages on social networks influence the purchasing behavior of college students?The Journal of Applied Business Research, 25, 101–109. doi:10.19030/jabr.v25i1.1052
48.
WaltherJ. B.ParksM. (2002). Cues filtered out, cues filtered in: Computer-mediated communication and relationships. In KnappM. L.DalyJ. A. (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 529–563). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
49.
WaltherJ. B.Van Der HeideB.HamelL. M.ShulmanH. C. (2009). Self-generated versus other-generated statements and impressions in computer-mediated communication: A test of warranting theory using Facebook. Communication Research, 36, 229–253. doi:10.1177/0093650208330251
50.
WaltherJ. B.Van Der HeideB.KimS.WestermanD.TongS. (2008). The role of friends’ appearance and behavior on evaluations of individuals on Facebook: Are we known by the company we keep?Human Communication Research, 34, 28–49. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00312.x
51.
WebbO. J.EvesF. (2007). Promoting stair climbing: Effects of message specificity and validation. Health Education Research, 22, 49–57. doi:10.1093/her/cyl045
52.
WillemsenL. M.NeijensP. C.BronnerF. (2012). The ironic effect of source identificationon the perceived credibility of online product reviewers. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18, 16–31. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01598.x
