Credibility in the blogosphere: A study of measurement and ...€¦ · related reasons. First, the social context of wine motivates people to seek information in order to make a correct

Credibility in the blogosphere: A study of measurement and influence of wineblogs as an information source

TRACY RICKMAN COSENZA1*, MICHAEL R. SOLOMON2† and WI-SUK KWON3‡

1Department of Marketing and Supply Chain Management, Fogelman College of Business and Economics, University of Memphis, 210

Admin Bldg, Memphis, TN 38152, USA2Center for Consumer Research, Saint Joseph’s University, Haub School of Business, 257 Mandeville, Philadelphia, PA 19131, USA3Consumer and Design Sciences, 308 Spidle Hall, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849, USA

ABSTRACT

Uncovering what drives the consumer to action is of interest to academia and industry alike, and the advent of social media has added a confoundinglayer to the consumer decision process. In some ways, it has changed nothing, and in other ways, it has changed everything. Information is at theheart of decision making, and blogs offer a plethora. A positive evaluation of credibility (believability) will ultimately determine its usability fordecision making. Using centered resonance analysis of wine blog writers and readers focus group data, this study attempts to address the full rangeof blog characteristics (subsequent scale items) that can be evaluated for credibility, anchoring them to the relevant research streams of media,website, and word of mouth. Structural equation modeling of viral blog and Twitter survey data is used to test the hypothesized scale with threedimensions—site, message, and source—for validity and also evaluate the credibility influence on behavioral intentions asmediated by trust. Evidencesuggests that the author (source) is central to credibility evaluation. The data also support the influence of wine blog credibility perceptions on trust,which leads to following wine blog recommendations and continuing to participate with the wine blog. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

key words Credibility; Blogs; Blog Credibility; Blog Influence; Social Media; Wine Blog Influence; Wine Blog Credibility

“Google it,” a phrase ubiquitous with consumers’ quest forinformation, demonstrates the importance of online searchin a microanalysis of consumer decision making. Accordingto Lecinski (2011) in his popular eBook Zero Moment ofTruth, 70 percent of purchase decisions begin with onlinesearch – particularly looking for recommendations and prod-uct reviews. The Fleishman-Hillard and Harris InteractiveAnnual Global Study (2012) reveals that 89 percent of con-sumers use Internet search to make purchasing decisions.They further report that Internet search is comparativelyinfluential with information from family and friends in theUSA and greater still in Canada, Asia, and India. The Internethas simply changed how we decide what we buy.

Consumer search for informationIf a consumer does not possess adequate information to makea decision, an external information search is necessary.Traditional research identifies sources of external informa-tion search as follows: (i) interpersonal (word of mouth(WOM)); (ii) independent (consumer reports); and (c) marketoriented (advertising). Of these, the influence of WOM hasan extensive history in the literature of playing a significantrole in decision choice (e.g., Brown and Reingen, 1987;Godes and Mayzlin, 2004; Mourali et al., 2005). The Webhas broadened the WOM communication environment to in-clude WOM on the Web (electronic WOM (eWOM)). Webtools and social media applications proliferate on the Web,

allowing individuals to freely share information and opinionson any topic. The power of eWOM lies in its permanence anddelivery mechanism. Interpersonal WOM communication isoral and vanishes as soon as it is uttered except for what isremembered by the speaker and the receiver. Whereas the tradi-tional temporal exchange has no record, the technologies ofeWOM permanently store the communication in cyberspace.Permanence is very important for information search. The con-versation is continuously accumulated on theWeb as text and isavailable for search. The text is searchable by topics or tags viasearch engines. Most importantly, theWeb shifts the geographyof WOM communication from local to global. Formerly, thespread of WOM was limited. The Web accelerates eWOMcommunication, and because it is a virtual conversation ware-house, the eWOM is available whenever and wherever needed.With theWeb, the diffusion of eWOM is limitless. The anytimeavailability of persuasive information from fellow consumerson virtually any topic shifts the control of market conversationsfrom business to consumers on sheer volume alone. Phelpset al. (2004) argue that the speed, convenience, one-to-manyreach, and absence of face-to-face human pressure make onlineWOMmore influential than its traditional offline counterpart, afinding upheld in industry studies. Although there are others(Meuter et al., 2013) who would argue the persuasive influencestrength of eWOM versus traditional WOM, the overall evi-dence indicates that e-communication channels shape eWOMinterpersonal communication. Further, the influence of user-generated content, which is the crux of a blog, is more likelyto impact the use of a blog as an information source when theproduct category is complex (Riegner, 2007).

Blogs, classified as social media and user-generated con-tent, cover a variety of topics and represent a virtual ware-house of searchable information. Blogs are the third mostlikely online platform to influence a purchasing decision

*Correspondence to: Tracy Rickman Cosenza, Instructor of Marketing andCoordinator of Social Media Programs, Department of Marketing and Sup-ply Chain Management, Fogelman College of Business and Economics,University of Memphis, 210 Admin Bldg, Memphis, TN 38152, USA.E-mail: [email protected]†Professor of Marketing, Director‡Human Sciences Associate Professor of Retailing

Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Journal of Consumer Behaviour, J. Consumer Behav. (2014)Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/cb.1496

(Technorati, 2013, Digital Influence Report). Created contentis posted, and interaction is encouraged with readers throughcomments. Although the potential of market conversationsinitiated by consumers in the blogosphere is widely specu-lated, the shift of communication power to the consumer isevident. This access to readily available information fromblogs on the Web produces an immense effect on consumerdecision making (Zafiropoulos, 2012). Thus, blogs have thepotential to alter how consumers search for decision informa-tion. Using social network analysis, Ghosh and Lerman(2008) suggest that the influence between blogs in the samecommunity is similar to that which is found among membersof a close network. Social network analysis is able to identifythe influential nodes of the network but is limited ininterpreting the outcomes of the influence. Interestingly,although social media is a prevalent topic in academic re-search, there have been few definitive conclusions offeredrelevant to the influence social media at large or blogs specif-ically have on behavioral outcomes (Lockshin and Corsi,2012; Zafiropoulos, 2012) despite being an integral part ofnearly every industry marketing strategy. This observationconstitutes the research gap this study aims to address.

The proliferation and diversity of blogs makes them im-possible to study in general. Therefore, successful researchmust address them on a more micro level. In addition, to beinfluential as a decision information source, blogs must ex-hibit credibility. Recently, researchers have extended the is-sue of genre credibility, different criteria for credibilityassessment of Internet sources of information, to the credibil-ity of blogs. For example, Kaye and Johnson (2011) foundthat different types of blogs were evaluated differently, eventhough they were all offering views of politics or news.

Because evidence indicates the importance of isolating in-fluence within a specific genre, this present research seeks toquantify the influence of blogs in consumer decision-makinginformation by using a more controlled study framework.Thus, this study focuses on the product of wine and how

consumers evaluate the credibility of wine blogs, developan attitude of trust, and consequently use the credibility as-sessment to make specific decisions (follow blog recommen-dations (purchase), spread WOM about a blog, and continueto participate in a blog). This model is depicted in Figure 1.

However, there is yet to be a validated measure of blogcredibility that captures the eWOM blog genre. As withany source of information – the usefulness of blogs is depen-dent upon how consumers perceive blog credibility and trustthem. Therefore, this study focuses on two phases:

Phase 1: The development and testing of measurements ofwine-specific blog credibility.Phase 2: The structural testing of the model is specified inFigure 3 using these credibility measures.

Why study wine blogs?Wine, a social object and product, has become more preva-lent in consumer behavior studies in a variety of social mediacontexts (e.g., virtual community, Habel et al., 2010; Thach,2010; WOM, Bouzdine-Chameeva and Galam, 2011; blogs,Doyle et al., 2011; search, Atkin and Thach, 2012; Twitter.Wilson and Quinton, 2012; blog influence, Zafiropoulos,2012), ranging in focus from awareness to purchase. Thach(2010) purports that wine blogs are clearly a source of infor-mation for consumers. According to the complete wine bloglist on Vinography (2014), there are well over 700 wineblogs in English, and the list also includes blogs written in12 other languages. When “googled,” wine blogs as a searchterm generates over 600 million results. Thus, wine blogs arechosen as the focus of this study for four important and inter-related reasons. First, the social context of wine motivatespeople to seek information in order to make a correct choiceabout wine or the lifestyle choices surrounding it. Many con-sumers view wine as a complicated product purchasewrought with uncertainty (Atkin and Thach, 2012). The po-tential adverse consequence of making a poor choice leads

Figure 1. Conceptual model of the influence of wine blog credibility on behavioral intentions as mediated by trust.

T. R. Cosenza et al.

Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Consumer Behav. (2014)

DOI: 10.1002/cb

many consumers to seek risk reduction through repeating thepurchase of a successful choice (stick with what you know),seeking the opinions of friends, or following the advice ofwine experts (Bouzdine-Chameeva and Galam, 2011). John-son and Bruwer (2004) found that when individuals havemore information about their wine purchase, they are betterable to predict the consequences of their decisions, and theirlevel of anxiety is reduced.

Second, wine is an experience-type product and, as aproduct category, requires knowledge and information topurchase (Thach, 2009). There are over 5000 different varie-ties of wine grapes. When coupled with the proliferation oflabels producing wine from the various varieties, the avail-ability of choice is daunting. It is unlikely that individualswill have the opportunity to taste every wine before a pur-chase; thus, they need to rely on recommendations fromothers who have had the opportunity. This informationranges from wine evaluation (e.g., ratings) to purchase rec-ommendations (e.g., discussions that are part of the cultureof wine), all of which are used by even the most wine savvyindividuals. Because this study focuses on blogs as an infor-mation source, repeated sharing and seeking of informationis considered a desirable component for study. The commu-nity of wine blogs naturally contains this exchange.

Third, the current study examines the influence of a wineblog as an information source for decision making. Certainproduct categories lend well to recommendation influences,and wine is one of them. Bouzdine-Chameeva and Galam(2011) offer three competing drivers of consumer choice onwine preference – view of experts, reputation of wine type,and WOM. The social landscape offers various forms of so-cial media influence for the wine consumer, and several ofthem have been explored. For example, Habel et al. (2010)found that although individuals participate in virtual commu-nities based on wine as the social object, their main focus ison the social aspects of the network itself and less on partic-ipating to give and receive information within the commu-nity. That is not to say that wine-related information willnot be shared and perceived credible as the social needs aremet but rather that individuals may not initially go to the vir-tual community to gain product knowledge. Wilson andQuinton (2012) found that although Twitter, a microblog, isused hourly for wine-related information, because of a140-character limit, tweets are relegated to directing trafficto another source for online or offline media. Thus, influencefrom another source can be enhanced by the use of Twitter,making it more useful for soft value as opposed to a hardvalue such as purchase. Additionally, Zafiropoulos (2012)suggests that the most active and connected wine blogs arepersonal and single authored and suggests that theirnetworked connectivity gives them the power to be influen-tial, further noting that their discussions can be analyzedand targeted for promotion. Kozinets (2002) stresses thatwhen considering a suitable online community to study, itis important for the interaction within the community to pro-vide the answers to the major research questions. An envi-ronmental scan of wine blogs notes multiple behavioralresponses, evidenced within posted comments. Because theinteractive social network of wine blogs conveys a sense of

community similar to friends or family, it seems plausiblethat individuals, who use the Internet, will search this onlinesurrogate for information before they make a purchase.

Finally, because wine is socially charged, trust is an impor-tant aspect in the behavioral response. We have become accul-turated toward trusting ratings and reviews when making awine decision, for example, sommeliers, point systems, shelftalkers, or publications. In common with each of these is somedegree of perceived expertness. Wine blogs offeringconsumer-generated wine reviews are the most common type(Thach, 2010), placing them in a necessary condition of signal-ing trustworthiness. Of note, the wine blogging community israther cohesive and has been participating in a Wine Bloggers’Conference since 2008when the primary focus from the vantagepoint of wine blogger or wine marketer was “what is the influ-ence of wine blogs and are they perceived as credible to the wineconsumer?” Wine bloggers desire to be influential and under-stand the importance of being perceived as credible. Doyleet al. (2011) identified the cues that commercial and non-commercial wine bloggers use to signal trustworthiness to theirreaders, finding that commercial bloggers stress product-relatedauthority cues and non-commercial stress product-related con-sumption experience cues.

The premise of this study is that individual wine blogreaders evaluate blogs for credibility and trust them to makea variety of decisions (e.g., purchase based on recommenda-tion). Therefore, the wine blog domain appears to be influentialfor decision making, providing a good opportunity to examinethe variables proposed in this model (Figure 1). In addition, itis assumed that the preceding justifications could easily transferto other products that are also experiential and complex.

KEY LITERATURE FOR THEORETICAL DIMENSIONSOF BLOG CREDIBILITY AND RELATED HYPOTHESIS

TESTING

As individuals have greater access to more diverse informa-tion sources such as blogs, the responsibility of credibilityevaluation is shifted to the receiver of the information. Previ-ous control mechanisms (like professional gatekeepers andeditorial review) that authenticated credibility may not bepresent or as effective. Further, the content posted by an in-dividual blogger is available to anyone who seeks it, makingit an open conversation that is not one to one, but one to any.Blog readers are searching unverifiable media, written by au-thors they may not initially know. Consequently, the re-ceivers of information must make a credibility evaluationof the blog on the basis of observable characteristics beforedeciding to trust the information. When unknowledgeableabout an information source, current research suggests thatconsumers may rely on a proxy to aid in their vetting suchas search rank algorithms (Weerkamp and de Rijke, 2012)and system-generated influence scores such as Klout(Edwards et al., 2013). The indicators for computer-aidedcredibility/influence authentication are relegated to numbersthe computer can compile such as the number of commentsand document length with respect to search rank and/or reachand amplification with respect to influence scores. Apart

Credibility first: the influence of wine blogs


DOI: 10.1002/cb

from these proxy indicators, blog readers are left to their ownsubjective assessment of blog information. The questionarises as to what blog characteristics corroborate the credibil-ity of the blog to the reader. As we will see in the followingsection, to address this question, it is helpful to focus on un-derstanding what blogs are. First, they are technically awebsite, although more dynamic and interactive than typicalwebsites. Second, as a carrier of information, they are a me-dia source, classified as social media.

Theoretical credibility dimensions of the blog as an infor-mation sourceThree traditional theoretical dimensions of credibility (site ormedium, message, and source) are supported in the literature(Eysenbach, 2008). When extending credibility assessmentto the Web environment, Flanagin and Metzger (2007) notethe complexity of the task, indicating that credibility assess-ment of information may be at the level of authorship, mes-sage, site sponsor, or medium. The same is true for thedimensions of blog credibility (e.g., Tan and Chang, 2012;Weerkamp and de Rijke, 2012). Although they are interre-lated (the blog as the medium, the blogger as the source,and the post associated with the blogger as the message),they have unique functions. For this reason, it is necessaryto evaluate perceptions of credibility along three distinctdimensions: (1) source credibility (i.e., the perceivedcredibility of the person (author) of the represented blog);(2) message credibility (i.e., the perceived credibility of thecontent (information) residing on the blog); and (3) site cred-ibility (i.e., the perceived credibility of the technical/aestheticfeatures of the blog website).

Measuring blog credibilityAlthough there is a large body of research that looks at the cred-ibility of various media channels, there is inadequate researchpertaining to how the credibility of blogs is evaluated by theirusers (Kaye and Johnson, 2011). Thus far, studies of blogcredibility have primarily focused on news or political blogs.Most often, blog credibility researchers compare blogs withother sources/mediums of information such as traditional/onlinebroadcast TV, cable, or newspapers. These research studiesexplore blog credibility using traditional measures from theliterature (fairness, accuracy, lack of bias, believability, anddepth of information; e.g., Yang, 2007; Kaye and Johnson,2011). As a result, researchers are getting mixed results due tomisleading data (Kang, 2009). Blogs are qualitatively differentthan the media channels with which they are compared, and thecurrent measures do not capture these differences.

Consideration of assessing credibility specific to blogs isnot new. Rubin and Liddy (2006) suggested a conceptualframework for automation of blog credibility assessmentconsisting of four dimensions: blogger’s expertise and offlineidentity disclosure, blogger’s trustworthiness and value sys-tem, information quality, and appeals and triggers of a per-sonal nature. Weerkamp and de Rijke (2012) proposedadding the textual components of the framework to improvethe retrieval process of blog posts, and the results supportedthe framework indicators. Tan and Chang (2012) exploredtravel information credibility (using non-verified credibility

measurement) by comparing travel expert blogs and televi-sion travel shows via source (trustworthiness, expertise, andattractiveness), message (structure and content), and media(trust, accuracy, non-bias and fairness, and completeness).Kang (2009) demonstrated a 14-item reliable measure ofblog credibility limited to the dimensions of blog sourceand blog message credibility within the context of public re-lations. Durukan and Bozaci (2012) used the dual blogsource/message credibility measures proposed by Kang(2009) to study determinants of WOM in social media.Although the results demonstrated support for the hypothe-ses, the results were based on a study of students, and thesources they evaluated were their friends.

When choosing which measurement items to include inour credibility scale, the focus of measurement must be deter-mined relative to the genre, the product, and the blog writer/reader. For example, is the focus on the credibility of thesource or the credibility of the content that is communicated?Additionally, information seekers utilize different evaluationcriteria depending upon the type of media (newspapers,television, or online) that is assessed (Newhagen and Nass,1989). The chosen items to evaluate blog credibility musttap into how the users conclude that a particular blog is cred-ible. For example, if the blog is perceived to be accurate,what is it about the blog that draws this conclusion?

The literature on genre credibility suggests a seeminglyfield-specific focus (Kaye and Johnson, 2011; Tan and Chang,2012). Therefore, for this study, blog credibility assessmentmust be developed not only for the study of newmedia (Wathanand Burkell, 2002) but also for the study of the specific natureof product types like wine blogs. Warnick (2004) warns thatthe “one size fits all” approach on the Web does not work.

Online trustWithin online trust research, there are two approaches tostudying the online relationships between the trustor andthe object of the trust (Corritore et al., 2003). The first ap-proach focuses on computer-mediated communications inperson-to-person relationships mediated through technologysuch as e-mail messages (Olson and Olson, 2000). The sec-ond approach focuses on technology as the object of trust(e.g., trust in a website or software agents; Corritore et al.,2003). That is, trust must occur toward the technology tobe accepted for use. The latter approach is the most prevalentin the literature; however, its focus on website infrastructuredoes not capture the personal nature of the wine blog, whichincludes a human “voice” in content and persona. Yet, whatcan be extrapolated from the website trust literature is thattrust in a website, or blog in this instance, occurs through in-teraction with and evaluation of the site (Bart et al., 2005).

Trust in a wine blog combines both of these approaches.Because the wine blog is the personal voice of the writer,trust is established at the individual or person-to-personlevel. However, trust also stems from an evaluation of thewine blog as a whole, which includes an assessment of themessage and the website in addition to the personal source.Some of these evaluative characteristics pertain to technolog-ical attributes merging both approaches of online relation-ships – technological and interpersonal.



DOI: 10.1002/cb

Behavioral intentionsThe ultimate variable of interest to the consumer behavior re-searcher, the marketer, and even the blogger himself (herself)is the prediction of behavior. Because most studies havefound a positive relationship between intentions and behav-ior using models such as the theory of reasoned action, thetheory of planned behavior, and the theory of trying, mostresearchers accept that intention is the single best predictor ofbehavior and use this proxy research strategy (e.g., de Canniereet al., 2009).

Conceptual framework for model testingThe conceptual model presented in Figure 1 reflects the influ-ence of wine blog credibility (beliefs about source, message,and site) on behavioral intentions as mediated by an attitudeof trust. As indicated in the literature and corroborated by thephase 1 credibility scale development, all media channelshave source, message, and site formats. However, they differconsiderably and may vary in how they are assessed for cred-ibility. Hence, the model further depicts the independentpaths between these dimensions and trust. In addition to theprevalent findings in trust studies that support the role ofcredibility in trust development, e-commerce studies sub-stantiate the importance of trust on behavioral intentions.Consequently, the model (arrows) reflects the influence ofcredibility on trust leading to behavioral intentions.

As depicted in Figure 1, scale development of wine blogcredibility is identified in phase 1 before the model is testedin phase 2. Based upon the literature review and the concep-tual model, two main hypotheses are offered.

HYPOTHESES FOR THE PREDICTIVE RELATIONSHIPBETWEEN CREDIBILITY AND TRUST IN THE BLOG

Individuals seek information for various reasons – knowledge,empowerment, and even support – but, by and large, meaning-ful information reduces the uncertainty of decision outcomesfor the seeker (Buckland, 1991). Therefore, individuals lookfor good information to make their decisions, that is, informa-tion they can trust. Good information needs to be filtered out ofall provided information. Individuals filter information byestablishing its credibility (Wathen and Burkell, 2002). As afilter, credibility allows consumers to evaluate the believabilityof the information based on their personal perspectives(Stanford et al., 2002). Credibility substantiation allows indi-viduals to trust information enough to actually use it. Becausecredibility influences the impact of the message (if and how itwill be used), it is important to understand how people decidewhat to believe (Wathen and Burkell, 2002).

When wine blog credibility is affirmed, an attitude of trusttoward the wine blog can be established. Support for thisrationale lies in the number of studies that find a positive re-lationship between credibility and trust. A long history ofsource credibility research finds that credible sources ofinformation produce more positive attitudes and behavioralresponses than do sources of information that are not deemedas credible (Hovland and Weiss, 1951; Petty et al., 1983).This observation particularly supports the critical role of

credibility in the development of trust (Lee, 2010). Further,the predominance of online trust studies also focus on therole of credibility in trust development (e.g., Corritoreet al., 2005; Doyle et al., 2011; Pan and Chiou, 2011), indi-cating the importance of credibility to the development oftrust on the Web. Therefore, as depicted in H1a, H1b, andH1c, a positive wine blog credibility assessment providesthe reason to trust the wine blog as an information source.

H1a, b, c: Credibility perceptions (source, site, andmessage)positively predict trust in the wine blog.

Because it is anticipated that the three components of blogcredibility serve different functions in credibility assessment,three sub-hypotheses are offered to reflect their independentcontribution to trust development in the model.

Blog source credibility (H1a)Perceived source credibility becomes increasingly importantas gatekeeping of credibility of information shifts to the re-cipient of the information (Haas and Wearden, 2003). Sourcecredibility is traditionally defined as the degree to which anindividual perceives a source to be believable (Austin andDong, 1994), and the research stream boasts a wealth of at-tention. A vast number of measures for source credibilityhave been offered with slightly different item structure foreach setting (traditional setting, e.g., Markham, 1968; Berloet al., 1969; McCroskey and Jenson, 1975; Ohanian, 1990;on the Web, Rieh and Belkin, 1998; Eastin, 2001; Metzgeret al., 2003; and to the context of the blogosphere, e.g.,Durukan and Bozaci, 2012; Tan and Chang, 2012; Wangand Chien, 2012). Validating the items needed to assesssource credibility has revealed considerable inconsistencies(Metzger et al., 2003). However, the consistency of the per-suasive influence of source remains undisputed. For exam-ple, Kiecker and Cowles (2001), examining online WOM,found that bloggers’ WOM was more persuasive when theblogger was perceived to be credible. Therefore, it is pre-dicted that credibility of source in a wine blog will persuadethe reader to develop trust in the blog.

H1a: Wine blog readers who perceive the author of thewine blog to be more credible (source credibility) willform a more positive attitude of trust toward the wine blog.

Blog site credibility (H1b)The definition of site credibility is generally accepted as theperceived believability of information by the receiver basedon the characteristics of the channel through which thesource sends the message (Newhagen, 1997). The literaturesupports that site credibility is impacted by design and aes-thetics (e.g. Fogg et al., 2002; David and Glore, 2010). Oneneed look no further than Obama Care’s 2013 healthcare.gov website debacle to highlight the importance of websitecharacteristics in communicating credibility. The websiteproblems were largely back-end, and the site continued tocrash because of scale issues. The public was frustrated, andthe administration was humiliated. As a result, the plan itselfcame under fire with a vote of no confidence. The solutionwas a total reboot of the account creation process, making it



DOI: 10.1002/cb

more intuitive to use, simplifying the text, and making the de-sign more responsive to multiple platforms while making thescreen more beautiful (Paskin, 2014). Thus, we anticipate animpact in the model based upon site evaluation as follows:

H1b: Wine blog readers who perceive a wine blog site tobe more credible will form a more positive attitude of trusttoward the wine blog.

Blog message credibility (H1c)Message credibility refers to an evaluation of informationcharacteristics that produce believability (Slater and Rouner,1996). Early research on the dimensions of message credibil-ity suggests a multi-dimensional construct and indicates thatcredibility may be evaluated on information quality, plausi-bility, accuracy, use of evidence, language intensity, andmessage discrepancy (e.g., Slater and Rouner, 1996). The in-formation science literature altered the dimensions somewhatto include reliability, accuracy, validity, comprehensiveness,and currency (Rieh and Belkin, 1998).

A few studies have applied the concept of messagecredibility to the Web. Alexander and Tate (1999) found thatfactors such as information accuracy, comprehensiveness,and currency are important for enhancing credibility on theWeb. Other researchers (e.g., Sundar and Nass, 2001) haverelied upon traditional media measures such as accuracy, ob-jectivity, bias, believability, fairness, or sensationalism whenevaluating Web credibility. Also using these traditional mea-sures, Johnson et al. (2007) found that the information onnews blogs is considered more credible than both traditionalnews sources and other online news sources by politicallyinterested users. Interestingly, the survey participants consid-ered blog information highly credible when judged on the in-formation depth but considered them weaker when evaluatedon fairness. Saxena (2011) also included the traditional mea-surement component of bias to measure message credibility.

It appears that fairness or lack of bias in the message is notof great importance when blog readers judge credibility.Lasica (2002) contends that the aspect thought to be missingin traditional media and most coveted by the blog user is anopinionated, thoughtful analysis. In fact, a biased messagemay be preferred. Further, in consideration of wine, it standsto reason that a wine blog reader may want an opinionatedanswer to “what would you do?” Therefore, the differencein information types is an important consideration when con-sidering message credibility. This study specifies the wineblog as a particular information type, and message credibilityis assessed through an evaluation of the characteristics of theblog message. Therefore, we posit the following:

H1c: Wine blog readers who perceive the posts in a wineblog to be more credible (message credibility) will form amore positive attitude of trust toward the wine blog.

HYPOTHESES FOR THE PREDICTIVE RELATIONSHIPBETWEEN TRUST AND BEHAVIORAL INTENTIONS

Ultimately, predicting behavior is the crux of studying con-sumer behavior. Building on the prior theory, we argue that

an attitude of trust positively influences consumers’ intentionto engage in various types of behaviors. According to thetheory of reasoned action, intention indicates a readiness toperform a particular behavior and can be considered an ante-cedent to behavior (de Canniere et al., 2009).

The literature is replete with support for the trust–intention hypothesis. Studies from the social sciencesliterature support the linkage between the state of trust andthe behavior that ensues (e.g., Tanis and Postmes, 2005).Studies from the marketing literature demonstrate the impactthat an attitude of trust toward a seller has on intentions topurchase, make a commitment, or have future interactions(e.g., Crosby et al., 1990; Morgan and Hunt, 1994; Garbarinoand Johnson, 1999). The extension of this research streamonline (e.g., Komiak and Benbasat, 2004) consistently dem-onstrates the critical role of trust on behavioral intentions ine-commerce environments and recommendation systems.Keeping with this line of reasoning, we posit the following:

H2a, b, c: Wine blog trust will positively predict a wine-related/wine blog-related behavioral intention.

Trusting behaviors are situational and are thus manifestedby different decision outcomes. In this present study, wine-related behavioral intentions include the individual’s intentionto engage in three behaviors: (i) follow recommendations –purchase or other wine-related advice; (ii) share WOMcommunication about the wine blog; and (iii) continue partici-pation with the wine blog (reading and/or commenting). Eachof these behavioral intentions relates to a behavior that isassociated with risk, making trust necessary. Therefore, thereare three non-sequential sub-hypotheses to capture thesituational outcomes.

Following recommendations within the wine blog (H2a)Following recommendations is not a new concept in thebehavior literature. An influencer sways the outcome of a de-cision by providing input to a decision maker’s evoked set(e.g., personal judgments about product). Although not theonly available outcome, purchase intention is typically ofhighest interest. The importance of trust in the influence ofpurchase intentions has been widely researched and sup-ported in the e-commerce literature (e.g., van der Heijdenet al., 2003; Pavlou and Gefen, 2004). It has also recentlybeen studied at the blog level (e.g., Saxena, 2011; Hsuet al., 2012; Wang and Chien, 2012; Wu and Lee, 2012).Hsu et al. (2012) measured perceived usefulness of recom-mendations and trustworthiness of the blogger by modifyingpast research measures to the online shopping setting. Theiradapted measures were not reported. They found thatbloggers with high credibility predicted an attitude of trustand intention to shop online. Additionally, they found thatbloggers with low credibility did not have a direct effect ontrust and intention but had a significant effect on the per-ceived usefulness of recommendation before predicting trustand intention to shop. Using measures developed for evaluat-ing health information, Saxena (2011) found a positive rela-tionship between information credibility, the attitude towardthe blog, and the intention to make a purchase. Findings byWang and Chien (2012) seem to suggest positive



DOI: 10.1002/cb

relationships between the perceived credibility of a productblog, the attitude associated with the product, and ultimatelyhaving a positive influence on intention to buy. Finally, Wuand Lee (2012) also found favorable support for purchase in-tention stemming from the blog’s trustworthiness effect onattitude toward the product, although measures were not ref-erenced in the paper. Because following recommendations,for a particular purchase, is important to the field of social/marketing research (McKnight et al., 2002b), it is includedas an outcome variable (H2a) in the present study.

H2a: Positive wine blog trust predicts a behavioral inten-tion of following the recommendation given within thewine blog.

Recommending the accessed wine blog to others (H2b)Word-of-mouth communication is defined as an exchange ofideas, comments, or opinions between individuals who donot represent a marketing entity (Bone, 1992). This exchangemay be about a brand, a product, a service, an organization,or even an idea. The spread of WOM communication aboutthe blog is important when considering the reach of user-generated content. In the online world, the ranking of a blog,or any website, is most often determined by its traffic. There-fore, the success of the wine blog can be significantlyimpacted by the influence of recommendations.

Sharing of posted content as a result of favorable blogcredibility assessment is documented (Durukan and Bozaci,2012; Wang and Chien, 2012). Wang and Chien (2012)found that consumers were willing to recommend thediscussed product with others (WOM) when the source wasfound to be credible. Durukan and Bozaci (2012) found thatconsumers were willing to share WOM in social media whenthe message (information posted) was found to be credible.

Support for the positive influence of trust in the WOM be-havior of consumers is found in the relationship marketingliterature (e.g., Sichtmann, 2007). In a study of finding thedeterminants of eWOM in social networking sites, Chu andKim (2011) found that the higher the level of trust in the con-tact, the greater the likelihood that they would engage ineWOM-passing behavior.

Therefore, this present study posits (H2b) that an attitudeof trust toward a wine blog will positively influence an indi-vidual’s positive WOM behavior about it.

H2b: Positive wine blog trust predicts a behavioral inten-tion of recommending the accessed wine blog to others.

Continuing participation with the accessed wine blog(H2c)The value consideration in the calculative component of con-tinuing participation with the same wine blog is based on theperceived benefits of using the wine blog and the cost ofleaving to find another information source. After an individ-ual has determined that a wine blog is a valuable source forinformation, the cost of finding another wine-related infor-mation source is associated with time risk. It is important tothe present study to determine whether blog credibility andtrust can predict an individual’s decision to return to the same

wine blog. A blog’s success, and thus its influence, is depen-dent upon the continued development of participation withthe wine blog (Hsu and Lin, 2008). Zafiropoulos (2012) spe-cifically notes the significance of community connectivity toa wine blog’s influence. One can extrapolate that communitycan be created with one’s own blog when readers choose tocontinue to engage with the wine blog as a preferred source.Thus, continued participation with a wine blog in this presentstudy stems from the importance of recognizing the value as-sociated with use of the wine blog and the cost (perceivedtime risk) associated with finding another informationsource. Therefore, we posit the following.

H2c: Positive wine blog trust predicts a behavioral inten-tion of continuing participation with the accessed wineweblog.

PHASE 1: DIMENSIONALITY/MEASUREMENT DE-VELOPMENT OF WINE BLOG CREDIBILITY

Statement generationInitial statement generation for the credibility measurementscales was initiated through Skype™-hosted online focusgroups. A convenience sample of 25 wine blog readers andwriters was solicited through the independent blog posts oftwo prominent wine bloggers. The sample included a rela-tively even split of writers and readers of blogs, both insideand outside the wine industry. The sample was skewedheavily toward male readers, a descriptive not uncommonwithin the blog community in general.

The wine blog participants were invited to discuss theirviews of what makes a wine blog believable. The inten-tion was to isolate the evaluative characteristics of thewine blog and establish a content domain for the con-struct. To aid discussion, a focus group guide with foursections of questions was created. The questions in thefirst three sections were designed to generate evaluativecomments about each of the three theoretical dimensionsof the wine blog credibility structure (site, message, andsource) supported in the literature. For example, for blogcredibility, some of the questions asked and the state-ments generated were as follows:

1. When you click on a wine blog site for the first time, whatdo you initially look for? (Site)

a. “professionally designed”

2. What are the most important wine blog site elements thatwould make you stay, read, and/or comment? (Site)

a. “easy to navigate”

3. Is good wine information easy to find in wine blogs?(Site)

a. “searchable”

4. Do you read the wine blog because of the text, the writer,or both? (Source)

a. “professional experience”



DOI: 10.1002/cb

5. How do you know if the writer is knowledgeable regard-ing the information they are discussing? (Source)

a. “tell me something I do not know”

6. How do you know if the writer is trustworthy regardingthe information they are discussing? (Source)

a. “experience with wine, understanding of wine”

7. How do you perceive the credibility of the message con-tent? (Message)

a. “its uniqueness”b. “well-written”

The final section pertained to overall wine blog credibil-ity. The participants were asked about the qualities of anideal wine blog, what turns them off, or what makes themwant to return to the wine blog again. An additional sectionwas designed with enough freedom in dialog to allowparticipants to include what they thought was missed in thediscussion.

The intent was to extract the dimensions of blog credibil-ity from the perspective of the blog user and also exploreusers’ perspectives regarding dimensions from the traditionalliterature. This questioning elicited a set of credibility state-ments to ensure content validity for the development of thewine blog credibility measures.

The text transcripts were content analyzed using centeringresonance analysis (CRA). The CRA was interpreted on thebasis of insights accumulated from the literature, participa-tion in the wine blogging community, and interaction withparticipants in the study. The recurring themes within actualstatements were used to generate an extensive set of itemsthat most accurately reflect the hypothesized dimensions ofwine blog credibility (source, message, and site). An initialpool of 650 statements was developed.

Generally, the findings of the focus groups confirm theimportance of the source, message, and site of the wine blogin its evaluation. The observations in the study coincide withthe findings of Fogg et al. (2002). Individuals look at aspectsof the wine blog as a website to determine credibility. Doesthe site navigate well? Is the layout appealing? Does it appearto be professionally designed? Does it have a search functionor use multimedia? These issues were enumerated in con-junction with remarks such as “I’ll move on if.”

The preferred source characteristics articulated in thisstudy uphold the general structure of source credibility thatprevails in the source credibility literature (Hovland andWeiss, 1951; Berlo et al., 1969; Ohanian, 1990), althoughthe statements reflect the specific character of a wine blog.For example, demonstration of expertise with wine and/orthe industry was important to the user. In addition, the respon-dents also desired some level of integrity such as respectingcomments posted on the blog or revealing conflicts of inter-est. In addition, the participants evaluated the appeal of thesource and preferred a writer that was like them or sharedtheir viewpoint.

The message characteristics expressed in this study departsomewhat from previous credibility scales for media. In

traditional media studies, the assessment of message credibil-ity was oriented toward capturing the objective, unbiased,just the facts, ma’am nature of the message. Although re-spondents in this study still expressed an interest in contentthat is current, useful, and well written, there also appearedto be much more focus on enjoyment during reading and alsocontent that is opinionated. For example, there was repeatedinterest in the entertainment value of the wine blog – wantingentertaining content or liking to laugh while reading a post.Respondents expressed respect for a writer that could delivercontent in an entertaining format.

The respondents also felt that blogs should express theopinions of the writer. To merely report information withoutbias suggested to the respondents that the blog was anaggregator of information, not a personal voice willing totake a position. This finding supports Johnson and Kaye’s(2004) observation that blog readers distrust traditional me-dia and choose blogs as an alternative to traditional informa-tion sources specifically because blogs do not hide their bias.

In addition, respondents felt that for posted content to passmuster, it must have a hook. The desire for catchy headlinesto help make a rapid determination of a post’s relevance sug-gests how Web information seekers look for information –quickly. These information seekers respect the content thatfirst catches their attention and also helps them make thequick determination if the post will be of use or interestto them.

Statement refinementAfter reducing the statement pool for clarity, redundancy,and study application, 180 statements remained. The state-ments were grouped according to similar themes, anddimensions/sub-dimensions were identified.

To ensure face and theoretical content validity, the re-duced statement pool was sent to five independent judges,three wine blog experts (expertise was subjectively deter-mined on the basis of the blogger’s experience with wineblogging and traffic on the site), and two marketing profes-sors specializing in interactive marketing and Web applica-tion. The judges were asked to sort the statements accordingto the dimensions/sub-dimensions previously identified, al-though they could create dimensions of their own, genericallycategorize the statements, or not assign the statements at all.From the independent evaluation, 63 statements were retainedon the basis of congruent categorization on the dimensions byat least four of the five judges.

Pilot sampleEarly data collection was undertaken for further statement re-finement. A questionnaire was developed to include the 63Likert-developed items to validate the credibility scales.The items were loaded into Questionpro® (online surveysoftware) and administered to a sample of five wine bloggersand five wine blog readers, who were not included in the fi-nal sample of the study. These individuals made commentson the administration difficulties, question wording, andtiming of the survey on the online venue. This process re-sulted in the deletion of six problem items, leaving 57 items



DOI: 10.1002/cb

for full data collection. The questionnaire was adjusted forefficiency and reloaded into the Questionpro® platform.

Sample for credibility scale developmentA viral sampling strategy was implemented over a 40-dayperiod using all available digital and social media platforms,along with an incentive promise of a random drawing for oneof ten e-gift – winners’ choice – certificates valued at $25each. This enhanced practical data collection, completed sur-veys, and participant representativeness.

The viral sampling procedure produced 285 completedsurveys with a completion rate of 59 percent (285/482)reflected by 1618 hits (482 started and 285 completed). Thecompletion ratio was higher than the average completion ra-tio found in all of the Questionpro© online surveys. Thisfinding is likely due to the sampling procedure of self-selected participation. The invitations, initiated from wineblogs, were read by individuals under high involvement withwine and at least some involvement with wine blogs. Indeed,of the 285 completed surveys, 94 percent of participants indi-cated high involvement with wine. Further, 39 percent havetheir own blog, 23 percent have participated with wine blogsless than 1 year (32% for 1–2 years, 28% for 3–4 years, and17% for five or more years), 32 percent participate over2 h/day, 73 percent are men, 80 percent are college graduates,

51 percent are over 45 years, 38 percent are inside the wineindustry, 45 percent earn over 100K, and 67 percent residein the USA.

After the actual data collection, the data set was examinedto remove any foreseeable inconsistencies in the data thatcould add additional error into the subsequent analyses(Sonquist and Dunkelberg, 1977, p. 41). This editing processreduced the completed survey data set to 263.

Scale purificationThe original sets of questions were assessed using Likertscaling from strongly agre to strongly disagree. Using datafrom the random split of the dataset (n = 118), item analysiswas conducted as suggested by a SPSS item analysis whitepaper (1998). On the basis of this procedure, 30 itemsremained after the item analysis as seen in Table 1.

Exploratory factor analysisUsing the 30-variable set from the item analysis, the appro-priateness of factor analysis was satisfied with the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure for sampling adequacy (0.847) andBartlett’s test of sphericity (p< 0.001). An exploratoryprincipal component analysis with an oblique promax rota-tion was implemented along with a scree test that reducedthe data to three factors, which explained 46.4 percent of

Table 1. Initial purified scale of hypothesized credibility structure variable dimension

Variable item Variable name

Site dimensions (STE CRED)Visual design This wine blog looks professionally designed. sd1

The background colors used on this wine blog are alluring. sd2Headlines used in this wine blog make it believable. sd3

Functionality This wine blog is easy to navigate. sf1The use of multimedia makes this wine blog more useful. sf2This wine blog allows me to search for past content. sf3

Initial appearance I like the layout on this wine blog. sa1I like the colors used in this wine blog. sa2

Message dimensions (MSG CRED)Content As a reader, I gather useful information from this wine blog. mc1

I do not have to like a topic on this wine blog to read the post. mc2I like this wine blog to be continually updated. mc3

Style Catchy headlines make the posts on this wine blog more believable. ms1Catchy headlines add uniqueness to the posts on this wine blog. ms2I appreciate this well-written wine blog. ms3

Liking I like the entertaining content on this wine blog. ml1I like to read unbiased wine reviews on this wine blog. ml2Comments posted on this wine blog make the blog more interesting. ml3

Source (writer) dimensions (SRC CRED)Expertise This wine blogger knows the wine industry. we1

I think this wine blogger is knowledgeable about wine. we2This wine blogger seems to have a broad knowledge of wine. we3

Trustworthiness I respect the writer of this blog. wt1I expect this wine blogger to reveal all conflicts of interest. wt2This wine blog writer discloses his or her background. wt3This wine blogger respects my comments. wt4Once I established a relationship with this wine blogger,I never questioned his or her integrity.

wt5

Appeal I have a lot in common with this wine blogger. wa1This wine blogger is a creative genius. wa2Everyone likes this wine blog writer. wa3I appreciate the effort this wine blog writer puts into his or her posts. wa4I admire this wine blogger. wa5



DOI: 10.1002/cb

the variance. Each of these factors related to a hypotheticaldimension of the wine blog – source, site, and message.

A three-factor solution model was retained from the purifica-tion sample of items, and the factor analysis was again conducted.The descriptive variables and the reliabilities for the exploratoryfactor analysis (EFA) are shown in Table 2. The three-factorsolution for wine blog credibility accounted for about 73 percentof the total variance. Furthermore, all items in the three-factorsolution had 0.70 or greater loadings with no cross loadings onthe other factors. This shows evidence for the independence ofthe constructs and adequate internal consistency (Gorsuch, 1983).

The resultant attribute structure for each dimension ofseems to be consistent with the original hypothesized structurefrom the literature. Thus, the remainder of the study uses thefollowing dimensions and the resultant study items (which willbe measured in a 7-point Likert format) as shown in Table 2.

Construct validationThe credibility literature review suggests that the new scaleshould possess three first-order factors that correspond toeach of the three dimensions of wine blog credibility (site,message, and source). These factors collectively measurewine blog credibility as a whole but are statistically evaluatedas a three-factor correlated model (Tian et al., 2001). Thus,the measurement model was evaluated on the basis of thehypothesized dimensions of wine blog credibility.

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to assess thereliability and validity of each dimension of the wine blogcredibility construct. A measurement model with the threefactors was specified, and each of the nine indicators was in-dicated to a factor according to the results of the EFA. Usingthe second half of the data (n= 145), the confirmatory factormodel was estimated using AMOS 16.0 (SPSS, Inc.), maximumlikelihood estimation (Arbuckle, 2009). To obtain multiple indi-cators for the hypothesized constructs, a more lenient factorloading of 0.60was expected for retention of the indicators (Hairet al., 1998). In addition to chi-square, the indices of root meansquare error of approximation, comparative fit index, standard-ized root mean square residual, and normed chi-square(CMIN/df) were evaluated to assess the overall fit of the

measurement model. Following the overall model fit assess-ment, convergent and discriminant validity was examinedusing multiple measures.

The overidentified model was examined for offending es-timates, and none were found. The CFA indicated that allloadings of indicators were at or above the threshold of0.60. All parameter estimates were significant. The chi-square test in the CFA was above the 0.05 minimum(χ2 = 33.409, df = 24, sig = 0.096). This statistic showed sup-port for acceptable fit. Additionally, other fit indices chosenfor evaluation were acceptable, indicating a good fit betweentheory and data. The root mean square error of approxima-tion value of 0.056 was below the 0.08 cutoff (MacCallumet al., 1996). The comparative fit index was 0.980, abovethe cutoff of 0.950 (Hu and Bentler, 1999). The standardizedroot mean square residual value of 0.034 was below the rec-ommended 0.05 cutoff (Byrne, 2001). Further, the normedchi-square (χ2/df) had a value of 1.392. This value fell under3.0, the recommended range for model parsimony (Hooperet al., 2008). The CFA measurement model of the credibilityconstruct is depicted in Figure 2.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics from exploratory factor analysis

Componentname Item

Factorloading Eigenvalue

Percentage ofvariance

Scalereliability

SRC CRED 3.691 41.014 0.872I think this wine blogger is knowledgeable about wine (we1). 0.923This wine blogger knows the wine industry (we2). 0.907This wine blogger seems to have a broad knowledge ofwine (we3).

0.853

STE CRED 1.708 18.976 0.800I like the layout on this wine blog (sa1). 0.886This wine blog is easy to navigate (sf1). 0.841This wine blog looks professionally designed (sd1). 0.806

MSG CRED 1.184 13.155 0.737Catchy headlines make the posts on this wine blog morebelievable (ms1)

0.868

I like the entertaining content on this wine blog (ml1). 0.804Catchy headlines add uniqueness to the posts on thiswine blog (ms2).

0.779

Figure 2. Confirmatory factor analysis measurement model ofcredibility construct.



DOI: 10.1002/cb

Convergent validity and reliabilityInternal consistency is a necessary condition for convergentvalidity and was evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha andcomposite reliability. All three constructs exceeded the rec-ommended threshold of 0.70 for coefficient alpha (Nunnally,1978). The composite reliabilities for each constructexceeded the recommended threshold of 0.70 (Churchill,1979). Convergent validity was indicated by multiplemethods of analysis (Table 3). All factor loadings of individ-ual indicators on their respective constructs were positive andsignificant as suggested by Bagozzi and Yi (1988). Seven outof nine loadings met or exceeded the 0.70 threshold sug-gested by Nunnally (1978). The average variance extracted(AVE) also exceeded the recommended threshold of 0.50for each of the constructs (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).

Discriminant validityDiscriminant validity was assessed by multiple measures. Acomparison between the AVE of each construct and theshared variance between the constructs was conducted(Fornell and Larcker, 1981). As reported in Table 4, the indi-vidual variance extracted (AVE) for each latent variableexceeded the shared variance (squared correlation) betweenthe constructs. Discriminant validity was also tested in achi-square difference test of the three paired constructs(Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). In one analysis, the correla-tion between constructs was set at 1.0, whereas the otherwas permitted to be freely estimated. As noted in Table 5,all three comparisons between the constructs were statisti-cally significant. Further, acceptable goodness-of-fit mea-sures for the measurement model indicate that the constructsin the model are different. Thus, all constructs achieved dis-criminant validity.

These analyses suggest that the developed scale ade-quately meets or exceeds the empirical requirements for scaledevelopment. However, it appears that the individual itemsretained and the number of items retained per factor maybe inadequate to capture the content validity of the hypothe-sized dimensional structure. This issue will be further ad-dressed in the empirical testing of the model, whichexamines the causality of the dimensions within the predic-tive model.

PHASE 2: STRUCTURAL MODEL TESTING FORNOMONOLOGICAL VALIDITY

SampleThe analytics for testing the structural equation modeling(SEM) shown in Figure 1 and specified in Figure 3 utilizethe original combined sample of 263. Given the sample size,the basic data assumptions of SEM were generally satisfied.Univariate normality was satisfied on the basis of Kline’s(2005) recommendation that only variables greater than |3|for skewness or |8| for kurtosis indicate concern. However,the Mahalanobis d-squared observations (from Mahalanobis,1930) indicated 45 outliers for potential deletion. All caseswere examined, and 14 cases were dropped because of ex-treme values, leaving 249 cases for analysis.

MeasuresIn addition to the Likert credibility scales, the questionnaireincluded multiple-item, 7-point Likert scales for the remain-ing variables in the model. These scales were chosen on thebasis of compatibility with theoretical focus and wereadapted to meet the needs of this study. For example, trustwas measured by an adapted scale from Young and Albaum(2003). The three-item scale was used to measure the central-ity of emotions in the development of trust. Intention to fol-low recommendations was measured using a three-item scaleadapted from McKnight et al. (2002a). The original scalewas created to measure the behavioral intention-subjectiveprobability of acting on advice. An adapted scale fromZeithaml et al. (1996) was used to measure WOM intentions.The three items were labeled a priori in the original scale asWOM intentions. A three-item scale to measure intention to

Table 3. Convergent validity and reliability assessment

Items Standardized loading Critical ratio Cronbach’s alpha Scale composite reliability Average variance extracted

STE CRED 0.800 0.807 0.585sa1 0.956 10.766sd1 0.689 8.098sf1 0.722 8.575

SRC CRED 0.872 0.880 0.711we1 0.983 11.263we2 0.879 12.637we3 0.750 9.531

MSG CRED 0.737 0.764 0.524ms1 0.852 9.771ms2 0.600 6.628ml1 0.701 7.921

Table 4. Discriminant validity assessment using average varianceextracted versus shared variance test

Variable Items STE CRED MSG CRED SRC CRED

STE CRED 3 0.585 0.091 0.132MSG CRED 3 0.303 0.526 0.275SRC CRED 4 0.364 0.524 0.711

Note: Correlations are below the diagonal, squared correlations are above thediagonal, and average variance extracted estimates are presented on thediagonal.



DOI: 10.1002/cb

continue with the wine blog was adapted from multipleindicators offered in the literature (Allen and Meyer, 1990;Morgan and Hunt, 1994; Hsu and Lin, 2008). The amalgamof items was chosen on the basis of the premise that an ex-change partner (wine blog participant) will desire to cultivateor maintain a relationship with a wine blog that is perceivedto be a valuable source of information. Reliability measuresof all the scales used in this study along with sample itemsare reported in Table 6.

Structural equation model analyticsTo test the relationships among the variables, the hypothe-sized model was estimated using maximum likelihoodmethod and evaluated for model fit according to the samecriterion used in the CFA. Although the χ2 was significant,indicating an unacceptable fit between the observed dataand the proposed model, all other fit statistics were within arange suggesting acceptable, albeit marginal, fit (Figure 3).A specification search was conducted in an effort to achievea better fit for the model if the modifications made strongsubstantive sense (Jöreskog and Sörbom, 1993). The size ofthe modification indices did not indicate any theoretical sug-gestions for model respecification.

Following an evaluation of overall fit, the model was ex-amined at the measurement level and then at the structurallevel. This two-step procedure was intended to ensure thatthe structural analytics stemmed from a measurement modelwith desirable psychometric properties so that the conclu-sions are meaningful.

Assessment of measurement model fitThe results of the measurement model assessment are re-ported in Table 7. The estimated loadings of the indicatorsall achieved significance at the p< 0.001 level. The scalecomposite reliability for each construct achieved a compositereliability of greater than the 0.70 recommended cutoff (Hairet al., 1998). Finally, the AVE fell short of the recommendedcutoff of 0.50 (Hair et al., 1998) for two of the constructs,indicating that more than 50 percent of the variances in thelatent constructs was not accounted for.

Assessment of structural model fitTable 8 depicts the results of the assessment of the structuralmodel, conducted to determine if the model could offer anyinterpretive meaning.

The directions of the parameters between the latentvariables were all found to be as hypothesized (+). The

Table 5. Discriminant validity assessment using χ2 difference for paired constructs

Construct pairing χ2 free χ2 fixed χ2 difference χ2 significance

STE CRED/SRC CRED 52.935 193.731 140.796 ***SRC CRED/MSG CRED 15.126 102.620 87.494 ***STE CRED/MSG CRED 20.179 170.561 150.382 ***

Note: Significance determined by χ2 difference test.*p< 0.05,**p< 0.01,***p< 0.001.

Figure 3. Structural model for hypothesized causal testing.



DOI: 10.1002/cb

magnitudes of the estimated parameters were evaluated forstrength of the hypothesized relationships. Five of six param-eters were statistically significant as indicated by a critical ra-tio in excess of |1.96|. Three parameters failed to achievepractical significance (structural coefficients above 0.30), in-dicating that the paths were not supported by the data. To

assess the accuracy of the prediction in the structural paths,the amount of variance in each of the endogenous variables(as indicated by the squared multiple correlations (R2)) wasexamined (Figure 3). In this present model, a strong effectsize was reported for trust (0.49), following recommenda-tions (0.62), and continued blog participation (0.64), whereas

Table 6. Measurement item descriptives (means, standard deviations, and reliabilities of model data set)

Scale name Scale/adapted scale items Item names Mean SDCronbach’s

alpha

STE CRED I like the layout on this wine blog. sa1 5.45 1.047 0.835This wine blog looks professionally designed. sd1 5.38 0.977This wine blog is easy to navigate. sf1 5.41 0.996

MSG CRED Catchy headlines make the posts on this blog more believable. ms1 5.35 0.917 0.724Catchy headlines add uniqueness to the posts on this wine blog. ms2 5.18 1.069I like the entertaining content on this wine blog. ml1 5.49 0.784

SRC CRED I think this wine blog writer is knowledgeable about wine. we1 6.03 0.904 0.881This wine blogger knows the wine industry. we2 5.75 1.071This wine blogger seems to have a broad knowledge of wine. we3 5.84 0.932

TRUST I can rely on this wine blog. tr1 5.48 0.972 0.795I have confidence in the accuracy of the information on this wine blog. tr2 5.64 0.869This wine blogger is only concerned with promoting his or her interests. (r) tr3 5.63 1.175

FREC I would feel comfortable acting upon the information given to meby this wine blog.

frec1 5.65 0.810 0.902

I would make a wine-related purchase based on the advice I amgiven on this wine blog.

frec2 5.21 1.173

I would follow wine recommendations from this wine blog. frec3 5.34 1.146I would not hesitate to purchase wine-related products recommendedon this wine blog.

frec4 5.05 1.250

WOM I would say positive things about this wine blog to other people. wom1 5.92 1.057 0.869I would recommend this wine blog to someone who seeks my advice. wom2 5.46 1.270I would encourage friends and relatives to seek wine-relatedinformation from this wine blog.

wom3 4.98 1.372

CBP I will return frequently to make comments in this wine blog. cbp1 4.73 1.424 0.765I will return frequently to read this wine blog. cbp2 5.76 1.051I have no loyalty to this wine blog. (r) cbp3 4.02 1.756I feel that there are no benefits associated with participating in this wine blog. cbp4 5.37 1.181

Table 7. Unidimensionality and reliability of measurement model

Construct Item Standardized loading Mean SD Average variance extracted Scale composite reliability

STE CRED sa1 0.829*** 16.03 2.819 0.629 .837sd1 0.780***sf1 0.770***

MSG CRED ml1 0.613*** 17.62 2.230 0.489 0.739ms1 0.838***ms2 0.626***

SRC CRED we1 0.847*** 16.23 2.613 0.720 0.887we2 0.942***we3 0.757***

TRUST tr1 0.913*** 16.74 2.530 0.599 0.812tr2 0.805***tr3 0.562***

FREC frec1 0.756*** 21.25 3.875 0.707 0.906frec2 0.840***frec3 0.883***frec4 0.877***

WOM wom1 0.790*** 16.36 3.297 0.695 0.872wom2 0.923***wom3 0.780***

CBP cbp1 0.591*** 19.88 4.142 0.444 0.760cbp2 0.763***cbp3 0.659***cbp4 0.641***

Notes: ***P< 0.001.



DOI: 10.1002/cb

a negligible effect size was reported for WOM (0.00). Tofurther evaluate the influence of credibility on behavioralintentions, the indirect effect of each of the credibilityconstructs on the dependent variables was examined. Table 9reports the results of this evaluation. Two of the three credi-bility dimensions produced weak paths, suggesting thatsource credibility was the greatest contributor to the propor-tion of variance accounted for in both following recommen-dations (R2 = 0.615) and continued wine blog participation(R2 = 0.635).

MAIN STUDY FINDINGS

Role of credibility beliefs on trustThe first set of hypotheses stated that source, site, and mes-sage credibility beliefs would be positively related to an atti-tude of trust. The rationale for the general hypothesis wasbased on the predominance of trust studies that focus onthe role of credibility in the formation of trust. The generalhypothesis yielded to three sub-hypotheses that reflect the in-dependent contribution of characteristics of the three theoret-ical dimensions of the wine blog (site, message, and source).The positive influence of the independent dimensions ofcredibility on trust is statistically supported by the data; how-ever, the dimensions are not equal in their predictive power.

H1a proposed that there would be a positive relationshipbetween the credibility beliefs of the source (author) of thewine blog (SRC CRED) and an attitude of trust (TRUST).The direction of the path coefficient was found to be in thedirection of the hypothesized relationship. Further, the resultsindicated a significant relationship between SRC CRED andTRUST, evidenced by a critical ratio of 8.998. The magni-tude of the estimated parameter also achieved practical sig-nificance (β = 0.571). Thus, the findings provided strongsupport for H1c. Positive source characteristics (SRC CRED)

are statistically and practically predictive of an attitude oftrust (TRUST) in the wine blog.

H1b postulated that there would be a positive relationshipbetween the credibility beliefs of the wine blog site (STECRED) and an attitude of trust (TRUST). The direction ofthe path coefficient between the two constructs supported apositive relationship. As expected, the results indicated thatsite characteristics had a significant relationship with the for-mation of trust attitude as evidenced by a critical ratio ofgreater than |1.96| (2.90). Therefore, the findings providesupport for H1a. However, the magnitude of the estimatedparameter lacked practical significance, falling below the cut-off of β≥ 0.3 (0.190). Although the positive direction of therelationship was as hypothesized and the path was statisti-cally significant, its interpretation is somewhat meaninglessbecause of the effect size indicated by the regressioncoefficient.

H1c suggested that there would be a positive relation-ship between the credibility beliefs of the wine blog mes-sage (the posted content; MSG CRED) and an attitude oftrust (TRUST). The positive relationship between theconstructs was supported by the direction of the path co-efficient. The critical ratio of 2.31 indicated a significantrelationship between message characteristics and thedevelopment of trust attitude. Therefore, the findingsprovide support for H1b. However, the magnitude of theestimated parameter lacked practical significance, fallingbelow the cutoff of β≥ 0.3 (0.144). The positive relation-ship of the path was in the hypothesized direction and sta-tistically significant, but its interpretation is somewhatmeaningless given the effect size indicated by the regres-sion coefficient.

Before reflecting on the potential reasons for the preced-ing results, it may be helpful to consider the items retainedfor wine blog credibility measurement. The characteristicsof source credibility (SRC CRED) unilaterally merged onitems of expertise. Other items pertaining to trustworthinessor appeal had substantial cross loadings on at least threeother components and were not retained for further analysis.The items retained for site characteristics (STE CRED) couldbe superficially evaluated and captured the design, function,and appeal of the wine blog as a website. The characteristicsof message credibility (MSG CRED) in the retained itemsreflected the believability, uniqueness, and entertainmentvalue of the message content.

The explanation for the aforementioned dimensionalinfluence in the findings may be related to the type of

Table 8. Parameter estimates for hypothesized causal paths

Hypothesis Path Structural coefficient estimate Standard error Critical ratio

H1a (+) STE CRED→TRUST 0.19 0.068 2.894**H1b (+) MSG CRED→TRUST 0.14 0.122 2.099*H1c (+) SRC CRED→TRUST 0.56 0.062 8.873***H2a (+) TRUST→FREC 0.78 0.048 11.380***H2b (+) TRUST→WOM 0.03 0.066 0.394H2c (+) TRUST→CBP 0.80 0.090 8.438***

*p< 0.05,**p< 0.01,***p< 0.001.

Table 9. Standardized indirect path effects of credibilitydimensions on outcome variables

Credibilitydimension

Indirect effects

FREC WOM CBP

SRC CRED 0.438 0.015 0.445MSG CRED 0.109 0.004 0.111STE CRED 0.150 0.005 0.152

Bold emphasis indicates strength of source credibility paths.



DOI: 10.1002/cb

information in the wine blog, the level of analysis used in as-sessment, or an issue of measurement. The message of thewine blog is communicated at the interpersonal level and isconceptualized as an electronic type of WOM information.Consumers are increasingly accepting online opinions(WOM) from people that they do not know (Godar, 2005),and the same seems to be true for wine blogs. The WOMliterature provides evidence for the influence of a personalexchange of information among acquaintances on attitudechange and decision-making behavior (Herr, et al., 1991).Research studies also indicate that the influence of theWOM communication is based on the perceived credibilityof the source (Bansal and Voyer, 2000). Following the saidlogic, it is the credibility of the personal source that drivesthe use and influence of the information on the wine blog.Therefore, evaluation of the source dimension of the wineblog is preeminent when evaluating the wine blog as awhole.

Newhagen and Nass (1989) demonstrated that the criteriaused to assess credibility are related to the source level ofanalysis that varies with the type of media evaluated. Theyreported that television credibility was assessed at the indi-vidual level as an aggregate of on-camera personalities be-cause of the dynamic and immediate nature of televisionnews delivery. Newspaper credibility was evaluated at the in-stitutional level because of the perceived distance betweenreaders and the people that produce the papers. This findingis important to consider with respect to the wine blog. Liketelevision, the writer of the wine blog is a personality. Thewine blog is dynamic, and content changes at the hands ofthe author. Thus, it is expected that the credibility of the wineblog is at the individual level and the focus is on sourcecharacteristics.

Further, the wine blog is an individual voice, and credibil-ity is ultimately the responsibility of the author. Regardlessthe dimension, the evaluation is a reflection on the author.Does he or she demonstrate expertise in blogs, in writingability, and in wine? Does the site have good design, func-tionality, and appeal? It does if the author is an experiencedblogger. Is the content entertaining, original, and believable?It is if the author is an experienced writer. Is the author an ex-pert in wine? He or she is with demonstrated knowledge ofwine and the industry.

Although the previous arguments are intuitive on the basisof the known importance of source credibility in media andWOM evaluation, it would be inappropriate to minimizethe importance of content validity in the measurement of aconstruct. The qualitative phase supported the hypothesizeddimensions of wine blog credibility and produced solidsub-dimensions among the constructs. However, subsequentanalysis eliminated the sub-dimensionality of the sourcecredibility construct. The measurement items focused onthe assessed expertise of the source. Further, it is not appar-ent how the conclusion of expertise was assessed. It couldhave resulted from characteristics of the source directly or in-stead from the message content or quality of the blog site.The absence of knowledge regarding the potential interactionof dimensional evaluation makes the interpretation of resultssomewhat questionable.

Predictive relationship between trust and behavioralintentionsThe second hypothesis stated that an attitude of trust with agiven wine blog would be positively related to behavioral in-tentions. The rationale for this general hypothesis was basedon the importance of trust in predicting behavioral intentionsdemonstrated in online recommendation and e-commercestudies (Gefen et al., 2003; Pavlou and Gefen, 2004). Thegeneral hypothesis was further subdivided to reflect a hypo-thetical range of behavioral acts that may transpire from trustin an attitude object (wine blog) – to follow recommenda-tions given in the wine blog, to spread WOM regarding thewine blog, and to continue participation with the wine blog.

H2a postulated that there would be a positive relationshipbetween TRUST and FREC, the intention to follow recom-mendations offered in the blog post. The direction of the pathcoefficient supported the hypothesized relationship. Further,a critical ratio of 11.8 indicated a significant relationshipbetween the constructs. In addition, the magnitude of the re-lationship achieved practical significance (β = 0.801). Thus,the findings provided strong support for H2a. A positive rela-tionship exists between TRUST and FREC, an intention tofollow the recommendations set forth in the wine blog.Although this finding is not surprising, it is nevertheless themost important finding with respect to wine blogs’ potentialimpact on marketing activity. Do wine blogs influence peo-ples’ decisions to purchase? They certainly do.

H2b suggested that there would be a positive relationshipbetween TRUST and the intention to spread WOM about thewine blog. Although the direction of the path coefficient of-fered support for the hypothesized relationship between thetwo constructs, the magnitude of the estimated parameterdid not achieve statistical significance (CR= 1.107,p = 0.269) or practical significance (β = 0.076). Thus, H2bwas not supported by the data.

The non-significant finding associated with the estimatedparameter between the TRUST and WOM suggests irrele-vance of the path in the model. The sample size was adequateand was not suspected of causing the non-significant param-eter. In addition, the path did not demonstrate any practicalsignificance, nor did the R2 (0.010) suggest any explanatorypower of the independent latent variables that were expectedto impact WOM. Therefore, the path is a prime candidate forelimination from the model in the interest of parsimony(Byrne, 2001). This finding may have resulted for a coupleof reasons. First, the measurement items adapted for thisstudy may have incorrectly tapped into the spread of WOMpertaining to the wine blog. The items refer to spreadingWOM about the wine blog (the attitude object) as an infor-mation source instead of the spread of information foundwithin the wine blog. In retrospect, of importance to the busi-ness reader is the estimate of the WOM influence in the reachof content found in the wine blog. The focus on the attitudeobject instead of the information found on the wine blogmay have limited a significant, positive impact of TRUSTon WOM. Further, it may have been problematic that thestatements assumed that the peer group of the survey partic-ipants would be candidates for wine blog use (e.g., I wouldrecommend this wine blog to someone who seeks my



DOI: 10.1002/cb

advice). The outcome may have been different had the re-spondents been asked about their intention to pass the infor-mation from the wine blog to someone seeking their advice.

Second, it is likely that the lack of a significant relation-ship between TRUST and WOM is due to a theoreticalmisspecification of the model. The relationship between trustin an individual and subsequent positive WOM is supportedin the employee–customer relationship literature (Gremleret al., 2001). However, Gremler et al. (2001) focused on in-terpersonal trust developed over time within an ongoing rela-tionship (bank or dentist). This present study specified thatthe respondent was to answer the survey with respect to themost recently visited wine blog. It is likely that the majorityof participants made a decision of initial trust in the wineblog rather than an interpersonal bond with the writer. Thislevel of trust may have been enough to motivate an individ-ual to follow a recommendation in the wine blog or return tothe wine blog in the future, yet not at a relationship level thatwould motivate them toward transference of their own cred-ibility to someone else on behalf of the wine blog.

H2c proposed that there would be a positive relationshipbetween TRUST and CBP, the intention to continue partici-pation with the trusted wine blog. The direction of the pathcoefficient supported the positive relationship between theconstructs. The results also indicated that the relationship be-tween TRUST and CBP reached statistical significance asevidenced by a critical ratio of 8.43. In addition, the magni-tude of the estimated parameter achieved practical signifi-cance with a reported path coefficient of 0.790. Thus, thefindings provided strong support for H2c. A positive rela-tionship exists between TRUST and CBP, an intention tocontinue participation with the target blog in the future.Apparently, an attitude of trust in the wine blog creates stick-iness. Thus, it can be concluded that when the wine blog isdetermined to be a trusted source of information, it will beretained in an evoked set of preferred information sources.

To augment the earlier results, an examination of theindirect influence of the three credibility variables on the out-come variables reveals the same observed disparity betweenthe credibility variables in predictive power on the outcomevariables. Although the path coefficients suggest a strongpredictive relationship between TRUST and the outcomevariables following recommendations (FREC) and continuedwine blog participation (CBP), the indirect effects from bothsite credibility (STE CRED) and message credibility (MSGCRED) are weak. Again, the strong indirect effects of sourcecredibility (SRC CRED) indicate its contribution to theproportion of variance accounted for in both followingrecommendations (FREC) and continued wine blog partici-pation (CBP).

Theoretical development of blog credibility researchThe most interesting finding in this study was the over-whelming importance of source in predicting a decision totrust and intention to act. The relevance of the source maystem from what a blog is and what it is not. The blog is sim-ilar to face-to-face WOM because of the interpersonal-typecommunication delivered. The blog is different from a tradi-tional website because of the changing commentary from the

author, from a forum because control of conversation is heldby the author, from review sites because of the interactiveavailability with the author, and from other media outlets be-cause of the expected personal voice. It appears that the cruxof the wine blog is centered on the author.

Medium theory (McLuhan, 1964) explores the influenceof communication technologies and may offer further expla-nation for the observation of source influence. McLuhan(1964) stressed the importance of studying the effects of amedium as opposed to the message conveyed. Hedistinguished media on the basis of the characteristics ofthe medium and the cognitive process each required. Accord-ing to McLuhan (1964), each new channel of media shapesthe way that individuals, people, and society view the world.Every medium is a language, and new filters are required toview and listen to its messages. Because blogs are a new me-dium, they have their own character, and the purpose of thisstudy was to examine this character. Blogs are hypothesizedas a personal voice on the Web, unlike previous traditionalmedia or other online sources. As it turns out, this dis-tinguishing characteristic is the filter that encourages interac-tion with the blog – evaluation, trust, and behavioralintentions. But what does this mean going forward? Thisstudy suggests that credibility evaluation lies at the overallsource level but may also suggest that the evaluation mightbe more dimensionally complex than previously considered.The current literature does not offer a methodical structurefor analysis. As previously noted, credibility in theblogosphere is studied in various genres, using various mea-sures, with various outcomes of interest. Without a continu-ous, methodical research stream, it is difficult to suggestwhere generic conclusions reside. However, within the con-text of wine blogs and any similar genre (i.e., social contextor experiential), this study offers some interesting observa-tions from both the qualitative and quantitative studies. It isclear that blogs are an accepted source of information forthe socially driven, experience-laden context of wine, un-doubtedly to mitigate some aspect of risk (Atkin and Thach,2012). The qualitative phase revealed comments such as“wine blog writers help me understand wine,” “I’m lookingfor things that really teach me about wine,” or “I read themfor information about XXX, information about wineries, in-formation about the wine industry.” This study also offerssome support for Doyle et al. (2011). The indicators retainedin the factor analysis for source credibility centered on exper-tise. Thus, we know that source trust in the wine blog isbased on the expertise of the wine blogger, as opposed totheir trustworthiness or appeal. However, it is unknown ifthe expertise was signaled from commercial product-relatedknowledge or from non-commercial product-related con-sumption experience because the “last blog visited” wasnot specified as such in the survey. Further, on the basis ofthe categories of blogs identified by Thach (2010), it is notsurprising that both commercial and non-commercialbloggers signal ability first for trustworthiness. Expertise iswhat gives them authority to influence the reader. Further,this study supports the influence of the wine blog in the con-sumer decision-making process that has been previouslynoted in other blog study product categories such as medical



DOI: 10.1002/cb

and beauty products (Wu and Lee, 2012), electronics(Saxena, 2011), or online shopping (Hsu et al., 2012).

DISCUSSION

The research described in this manuscript was undertaken todevelop and validate a scale for the measurement of the cred-ibility of wine blogs as a new media source of information. Itwas specifically chosen to address the gap in research regard-ing the credibility of new media channels. The resulting scalemeasures the three correlated dimensions of wine blog cred-ibility. A conceptual model was tested to investigate the im-pact of wine blog credibility on behavioral intentions asmediated by an attitude of trust. Thus far, little (if any) re-search has attempted to quantify the behavioral effects ofblogs as a domain of marketing activity. This study is a firststep toward that goal.

The search for a measure of wine blog credibility insti-gated a look at the structure of the blog to ascertain an appro-priate structure for the dimensionality of the construct. Thus,credibility literature pertaining to websites, media, and inter-personal communication was reviewed. It was presupposedthat characteristics that directly related to the website as aplatform, message content, and the source as a personal com-municator would be significant in a credibility assessment.The qualitative portion of this research corroborated this di-mensional character of wine blogs in credibility evaluation.Although all three credibility dimensions show a significantpositive impact on the decision to trust the wine blog, onlysource credibility indicates practical significance. In addition,the data support the impact of wine blog credibility on two ofthe three behavioral intentions as mediated by trust. Thereare several limitations that may have compounded some ofthe less than desirable results of this first effort.

Although considerable controls were utilized to eliminatebias/error in this study, the results might be far from conclu-sive. The single product domain (wine blogs) might not be asappealing to some researchers as using a cross section ofblog venues. However, it would be difficult to do the follow-ing: (1) intensely study all of these blogs within a reasonabletimeframe and (2) qualitatively evaluate the interpersonal nu-ances of all blog venues in order to establish measures andrelationships for the modeling phase of the study. In the samevein, the sample of participants used to measure the conceptsin the second phase model came from a sample of readersand participants of only wine blogs. Therefore, it would beproblematic to generalize the results of this study to a broaderblog population outside the specific wine venue selected.Although there seems to be parallels between wine and othersocial products, caution is suggested in extrapolating theresults.

In Phase 2 of the study, trust behavioral intentions wereexamined with SEM. Examining a behavioral outcome andattributing it to antecedent effects through survey and SEMmight lend rise to criticism as to why experimentation wasnot used as a method of analysis. In order to use experimen-tation in this research, the creation of quasi-real blogs thatwould be necessary for the experiment would have at best

diluted the rationale and focus on the interpersonal natureof the blog relative to trust behavior. An artificial experimentwould have given more control but would have sacrificed arich study of the real character of wine blogs.

Another limitation in this study relates to the method ofrecruitment in the sample population. Non-probabilistic sam-pling creates sample bias. The respondents were recruitedthrough purposive sampling, and the initial wine blogs andsubsequent viral additions may not have tapped the popula-tion of wine blog users. Therefore, the sampling procedurelimited external validity.

The construct measurements for the individual dimen-sions of source and message credibility are another limitationin this study. It is apparent that the evaluation of wine blogcredibility at the structural level is somewhat interrelated.This observation is the likely cause for the substantial crossloading that occurred in the EFA that produced a less thandesirable number of items for each factor. For content valid-ity, the measurement of a factor requires multiple items thatcapture the identified facets of the construct. The qualitativephase was conducted to ensure content validity for each ofthe credibility dimensions. However, the item analysis andEFA limited the full scope of measurement. When reduced,the items to measure source captured the sub-dimension ofexpertise alone. This inadequacy of measurement may haveinflated the importance of source credibility findings. More-over, the items to measure message credibility focused on as-pects that were less cognitively assessed than hoped. Thismeasurement issue may have also reduced the importanceof the dimension in predicting trust in general. Further anal-ysis is warranted to examine the interrelationships of the sub-dimensions that impacted the factors produced in the EFA.

Further, as stated in the methodology, respondents wereasked to reference their responses to the wine blog that theymost recently visited. The literature suggests that trust maydevelop over time or may occur swiftly depending on con-text. This study had no means to assess the level of activityrespondents had with the wine blog that they last visited.As such, the predictive power of the individual dimensionsmay have been diminished. If they had no prior experiencewith the wine blog that they last visited, surface characteris-tics may have been more critical, or the evidence of wineblogger expertise may have superseded other characteristics.If they had prior experience, it is doubtful that site character-istics would have predicted.

This research may have ultimately raised more questionsthan it answered. Little research has explored the characteris-tics of blogs as an information source. Thus, there are furtheropportunities for research. The current study needs to expandand include other populations and product categories andalso consider how the perceived credibility of blogs com-pares with their traditional counterpart. During the currentstudy, animosity between traditional wine media and winebloggers was observed. There seems to be a battle forterritory, and credibility is at the center of the argument.Traditional media has been forced to downsize. Subscriptionshave declined and so have advertising sales. At the same time,bloggers have vastly increased their readership and profile asa viable information source.



DOI: 10.1002/cb

This situation is not isolated to the wine industry. A NewYork Times article (Wilson, 2009) profiled a young fashionblogger that was given a front row seat at shows such as MarcJacobs in Milan. Many designers have adjusted to the newfashion delivery system. Their collections are posted in cyber-space long before the lead time in traditional media can dolikewise. Therefore, the fashion industry is a viable next stepto test the developed blog credibility measures and the rela-tionships set forth by the model in this study. In addition,comparative research between blogs and traditional media iswarranted. Further, because blogs are a global phenomenon,cross-cultural implications should also be investigated.

Again, this study did not use experimentation in an effortto more realistically identify characteristics of blogs that helpusers establish credibility that impacts an attitude of trust.Now that a rich pool of characteristics have been identified,the obvious next step is to set up an experiment usingquasi-real blogs to better test the relationship between eval-uation of the blog and an attitude of trust.

The main objective of this study was to identify the indi-cators of the three individual components of wine weblogcredibility (media, message, and source). Interaction effectsbetween media, message, and source credibility are sup-ported by a variety of traditional and online research findings(e.g., message influences source evaluation, source influ-ences message evaluation, and perceived credibility is afunction of both source and channel characteristics; Slaterand Rouner, 1996). Although it is important to study andunderstand the complexity of credibility assessment interac-tions, it was beyond the scope of this research. However, fu-ture research should examine more carefully the intertwinedfunctions of blog media, message, and source credibility forcredibility evaluation and their impact on behavioral inten-tions as mediated by trust.

In terms of WOM communication, additional research isneeded that focuses on community in the blogosphere as itpertains to the diffusion of information. Blogs are part of asocial network, and information flows through the links.There are variables that impact the WOM influence in thecommunity. Therefore, research is warranted to study therole of blogs’ (eWOM) credibility in the flow of informationin a network model of influence (Watts and Dodds, 2007).

Finally, other variables should be examined that are rele-vant to the model. In this research, risk was not directly mea-sured. Instead, we assumed that it is mitigated by trust whenthere is an intention to engage in a behavior. The literaturereview offered specific risks associated with wine purchasefrom the wine-related marketing literature. Therefore, futureresearch should measure the associated risk variables to morefully examine the relationship between trust in the blog andrisk-laden behavioral outcomes. Propensity to trust is anotherrelevant variable to the model. This study specified that trustis not a personality trait but rather occurs in a specific situa-tion. However, some individuals trust others more freely,whereas others have more difficulty. It is also likely that apropensity to trust moderates the relationship between credi-bility of the wine blog and an attitude of trust and should beexamined in subsequent testing. And it may also prove usefulto test the moderator effects of wine blog involvement on the

elaboration process of the individual credibility dimensionswith respect to establishing trust.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research was conducted through the support of thewine blogging community. Personal relationships weredeveloped with wine blog writers, wine blog readers, winePR professionals, wine makers, wine sellers, and wine blognaysayers. Of course research must be grounded in theory,but insights from the trenches give practical insights toresults. From the point of industry, this research streamoffers some answers to the crux of the social landscapedilemma. Questions arise such as “do I have influence?”or “do they have value?” It all boils down to “what is theinfluence of wine blog?” That question is only answeredthrough finding what makes a particular wine bloginfluential – its credibility.The authors thank the wine blogging community for makingthis research possible.

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES

Tracy Rickman Cosenza, Ph.D. (Auburn University), is currentlythe Coordinator of Social Media Programs and Marketing Instructorin the Department of Marketing and Supply Chain Management inthe Fogelman College of Business and Economics at the Universityof Memphis. Her teaching interests are in social media marketing, inparticular, IMC strategy development and control. Tracy’s researchinvolves the use of social media platforms to enhance customer use,satisfaction, loyalty, and lifetime value (continuance). Her researchhas been published in the Journal of Fashion Marketing and Man-agement, The Journal of Transportation Management, and DMEFExtended Abstracts.

Michael Solomon, Ph.D., is a Professor of Marketing and Director ofthe Center for Consumer Research in the Haub School of Business atSaint Joseph’s University in Philadelphia, USA. Prof. Solomon’sprimary research interests include consumer behavior and lifestyleissues, branding strategy, the psychology of fashion, and marketingapplications of virtual worlds and other new media. He is the authorof several leading textbooks for Pearson Education including Con-sumer Behavior: Buying, Having, and Being 11/e, Marketing: RealPeople, Real Choices 7/e, Better Business 3/e, and most recently,Social Media Marketing (the first textbook on this topic). His mostrecent trade book, The Truth about What Customers Want, waspublished by FT (Financial Times) Press. Prof. Solomon is fre-quently quoted in magazines and newspapers, including Newsweek,The New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal. He has served asa consultant to numerous corporations including Calvin Klein, Intel,Procter & Gamble, Microsoft, State Farm Insurance, Under Armour,and United Airlines on issues relating to consumer behavior,marketing strategy, advertising, and retailing.

Wi-Suk Kwon is a Human Sciences Associate Professor of Retailingat Auburn University. She holds a Ph.D. in Consumer Sciencesfrom The Ohio State University with minors in Marketing andQuantitative Psychology. Her research revolves around consumerpsychology, branding, multichannel retailing, and retail technolo-gies. Her research has been funded by the National ScienceFoundation and US Department of Commerce and published inJournal of Retailing, Journal of Business Research, Computers inHuman Behavior, Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, andClothing and Textiles Research Journal, among many others.



DOI: 10.1002/cb

REFERENCES

Alexander JE, Tate MA. 1999. Web Wisdom: How to Evaluate andCreate Information Quality on the Web. Lawrence Erlbaum:Hillsdale, NJ.

Allen NJ, Meyer JP. 1990. The measurement and antecedents ofaffective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organi-zation. Journal of Occupational Psychology 63: 1–18.

Anderson JC, Gerbing DW. 1988. Structural equation modeling inpractice: a review and recommended two-step approach.Psychological Bulletin 103(3): 411–423.

Arbuckle JL. 2009. Amos™ 16.0 User’s Guide. Chicago: SPSS.Atkin T, Thach L. 2012. Millennial wine consumers: risk perception

and information search. Wine Economics and Policy 1: 54–62.Austin EW, Dong Q. 1994. Source v. content effects on judgment of

news believability. Journalism Quarterly 71(4): 973–983.Bagozzi RP, Yi Y. 1988. On the evaluation of structural equation

models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 16(1):74–94.

Bansal HS, Voyer PA. 2000. Word-of-mouth processes within aservices purchase decision context. Journal of Service Research3: 166–177.

Bart Y, Shankar V, Sultan F, Urban GL. 2005. Are the drivers androle of online trust the same for all web sites and consumers? Alarge-scale exploratory empirical study. Journal of MarketingResearch 69(4): 131–152.

Berlo DK, Lemert JB, Mertz RJ. 1969. Dimensions for evaluatingthe acceptability of message sources. The Public OpinionQuarterly 33(4): 563–576.

Bone PF. 1992. Determinants of word-of-mouth communicationsduring consumption. In Sherry J, Sternthal B (eds). Advancesin Consumer Research (Vol. 19). Association for ConsumerResearch: Provo, UT; 579–583.

Bouzdine-Chameeva T, Galam S. 2011. Experts versus word-of-mouth in the wine purchasing dynamics: a model from physics.Refereed paper – 6th AWBR International Conference, 9–10June 2011, France.

Brown JJ, Reingen PH. 1987. Social ties and word-of-mouth refer-ral behavior. Journal of Consumer Research 14: 350–362.

Buckland M. 1991. Information retrieval of more than text.Journal of the American Society for Information Science 42:586–588.

Byrne BM. 2001. Structural equations modeling with AMOS: basicconcepts, applications, and programming. Lawrence Erlbaum:London.

de Canniere MH, de Pelsmacker P, Geuens M. 2009. Relationshipquality and the theory of planned behavior models of behavioralintentions and purchase behavior. Journal of Business Research62(1): 82–92.

Chu S-C, Kim Y. 2011. Determinants of consumer engagement inelectronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) in social networking sites.International Journal of Advertising 30(1): 47–75.

Churchill GA, Jr.. 1979. A paradigm for developing better measuresof marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing 16(1): 64–73.

Corritore CL, Kracher B, Wiedenbeck S. 2003. Online trust:concepts, evolving themes, a model. International Journal ofHuman Computer Studies 58(6): 737–758.

Corritore CL, Marble RP, Wiedenbeck S, Kracher B, Chandran A.2005. Measuring online trust of websites: credibility, perceivedease of use, and risk. AMCIS 2005 Proceedings. Paper 370.Retrieved from http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2005/370 [Accessedon 24 August 2012].

Crosby LA, Evans KR, Cowles D. 1990. Relationship quality in ser-vices selling: an interpersonal influence perspective. Journal ofMarketing 54(3): 68–81.

David A, Glore P. 2010. The impact of design and aesthetics onusability, credibility, and learning in an online environment.Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration 13(4).Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/winter134/david_glore134.html [Accessed on 11 April 2012].

Doyle JD, Heslop LA, Ramirez DC, Armenakyan A. 2011. Trustbuilding in wine blogs: a content analysis. International Journalof Wine Business Research 24(3): 196–218.

Durukan T, Bozaci I. 2012. A survey on determinants of word ofmouth in social media. International Journal of Economics 1(7): 36–44.

Eastin MS. 2001. Credibility assessments of online health informa-tion: the effects of source expertise and knowledge of content.Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 6(4): 0–0.

Edwards C, Spence PR, Gentile CJ, Edwards A, Edwards A. 2013.How much Klout do you have … a test of system generated cueson source credibility.Computers in Human Behavior 29: A12–A16.

Eysenbach G. 2008. Credibility of health information and digitalmedia: new perspectives and implications for youth. In MetzgerM, Flanagin A (eds). Digital Media, Youth, and Credibility. TheMIT P: Cambridge, MA; 123–154.

Flanagin AJ, Metzger MJ. 2007. The role of site features, user attri-butes, and information verification behaviors on the perceivedcredibility of web-based information. New Media and Society9(2): 319–342.

Fleishman-Hillard and Harris Interactive. 2012. Annual GlobalStudy: 2012 Digital Influence Index. Retrieved at http://fleishmanhillard.com/2012/01/news-and-opinions/2012-digital-influence-index-shows-internet-as-leading-influence-in-consumer-purchasing-choices/ [Accessed on 12 February 2014].

Fogg BJ, Soohoo C, Danielson D. 2002. How do peopleevaluate a Web site’s credibility? Results from a largestudy. Retrieved from http://www.consumerwebwatch.org/dynamic/web-credibility-reports-ealuate-abstract.cfm [Accessedon 12 September 2013].

Fornell C, Larcker DF. 1981. Evaluating structural equation modelswith unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal ofMarketing Research 18(February): 39–50.

Garbarino E, Johnson MS. 1999. The different roles of satisfaction,trust, and commitment in customer relationships. Journal ofMarketing 63(April): 70–87.

Gefen D, Karahanna E, Straub DW. 2003. Trust and TAM in onlineshopping: an integrated model. MIS Quarterly 27(1): 51–90.

Ghosh R, Lerman K. 2008. Community detection using a measureof global influence. In Proceedings of the 2nd SNA-KDD Work-shop on Social Network Mining and Analysis (20–35) Las

Godar SH. 2005. Worldwide word-of-mouth communication: im-pact of a paradigm shift. Paper presented at AIB-SE (USA)Annual Meeting, Charleston, SC. Retrieved from www.aibse.org/…/Proceedings%202005/Worldwide%20Mouth.doc[Accessed on 12 September 2013].

Godes D, Mayzlin D. 2004. Using online conversations to studyword-of-mouth communication. Marketing Science 23: 545–60.

Gorsuch RL. 1983. Factor Analysis. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates:Hillsdale, NJ.

Gremler DD, Gwinner KP, Brown SW. 2001. Generating positiveword-of-mouth communication through customer–employee re-lationships. International Journal of Service Industry Manage-ment 12(1): 44–59.

Haas C, Wearden ST. 2003. E-credibility: building common groundin Web environments. L1 Educational Studies in Language andLiterature 3: 169–184.

Habel C, Veale R, Lu VN. 2010. I heard it through thegrapevine! Exploring drivers of participation in virtual com-munities. Refereed paper – 5th International Academy ofWine Business Research Conference, 8–10 Feb. 2010Auckland, NZ.

Hair JF, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, Black WC. 1998. MultivariateData Analysis, 5th edn. Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Herr PM, Kardes FR, Kim J. 1991. Effects of word-of-mouth andproduct attribute information on persuasion: an accessibility-diagnosticity perspective. Journal of Consumer Research17(3): 454–462.

Hooper D, Coughlan J, Mullen M. 2008. Structural equation model-ing: guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal ofBusiness Research Methods 6(1). Retrieved from http://www.



DOI: 10.1002/cb

http://www.ejbrm.com/vol6/v6-il/v6-il-art6abstraact.htm



ejbrm.com/vol6/v6-il/v6-il-art6abstraact.htm [Accessed on 20June 2013].

Hovland CI, Weiss W. 1951. The influence of source credibility oncommunication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly 15:635–650.

Hsu C, Lin JC. 2008. Acceptance of blog usage: the roles oftechnology acceptance, social influence and knowledge sharingmotivation. Information and Management 45: 65–74.

Hsu C-L, Lin JC-C, Chiang H-S. 2012. The effects of bloggerrecommendations on customers’ online shopping intentions.Internet Research 23(1): 65–74.

Hu LT, Bentler PM. 1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covari-ance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alterna-tives. Structural Equation Modeling 11(3): 320–341.

Johnson T, Bruwer J. 2004. Generic consumer risk-reduction strat-egies (RRS) in wine-related lifestyle segments of the Australianwine market. International Journal of Wine Marketing 16(1):5–35. DOI: 10.1108/eb008764

Johnson TJ, Kaye BK. 2004. Way the blog: how reliance on tradi-tional media and the Internet influence credibility perceptionsof weblogs among blog users. Journalism and Mass Communi-cations Quarterly 81(Autumn): 622–642.

Johnson TJ, Kaye BK, Bichard SL, Wong WJ. 2007. Every bloghas its day: politically interested Internet users’ perceptions ofblog credibility. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication13(1): 100–122.

Jöreskog KG, Sörbom D. 1993. LISREL8: Structural EquationModeling with the SIMPLIS Command Language. LawrenceErlbaum Associates: Hillsdale, NJ.

Kang M. 2009. Measuring social media credibility: a study on ameasure of blog credibility. Institute for Public Relations. Re-trieved 28 March 2014 from: <http://www.instituteforpr.org/wp-content/uploads/BlogCredibility_101210.pdf>.

Kaye BK, Johnson TJ. 2011. Hot diggity blog: a cluster analysis ex-amining motivations and other factors for why people judge dif-ferent types of blogs as credible. Mass Communication andSociety 14: 236–263.

Kiecker R, Cowles D. 2001. Interpersonal communications and per-sonal influence on the Internet: a framework for examining on-line word-of-mouth. Journal of Euromarketing 11(2): 71–88.

Kline RB. 2005. Principles and Practice of Structural EquationModeling. The Guilford Press: New York, NY.

Komiak SYX, Benbasat I. 2004. Understanding customer trust inagent-mediated electronic commerce, web-mediated electroniccommerce, and traditional commerce. Information Technologyand Management (ITM) 5(1&2): 181–207.

Kozinets RV. 2002. The field behind the screen: using netnographyfor marketing research in online communities. Journal of Mar-keting Research 39(1): 61–72.

Lasica JD. 2002. Weblogs: a new source of news. In Blood R (ed).We’ve Got Blog: How Weblogs Are Changing Our Culture.Perseus Publishing: Cambridge, MA; 171–182.

Lecinski J. 2011. Winning the Zero Moment of Truth (ebook).Retrieved from: http://www.thinkwithgoogle.com/research-studies/2011-winning-zmot-ebook.html [Accessed on 12February 2014].

Lee T-T. 2010.Why they don’t trust themedia: an examination of factorspredicting trust. American Behavioral Scientist 54(1): 8–21.

Lockshin L, Corsi AM. 2012. Consumer behavior for wine 2.0: areview since 2003 and future directions. Wine Economics andPolicy 1: 2–23.

MacCallum RC, Browne MW, Sugawara HM. 1996. Power analysisand determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling.Psychological Methods 1: 130–149.

Mahalanobis PC. 1930. On tests and measures of group divergence.Journal and Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 26:541–588.

Markham D. 1968. The dimensions of source credibility of televisionnewscasters. Journal of Communication 18: 57–64.

McCroskey JC, Jenson TA. 1975. Image of mass media newssources. Journal of Broadcasting 19: 169–181.

McKnight DH, Choiudhury V, Kacmar C. 2002a. Developingand validating trust measures for e-commerce: an integrativetypology. Information Systems Research 13(3): 334–361.

McKnight DH, Choudhury V, Kacmar C. 2002b. The impact of ini-tial consumer trust on intentions to transact with a website: atrust building model. Journal of Strategic Information Systems11: 297–323.

McLuhan M. 1964. Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man.McGraw-Hill: New York.

Metzger MJ, Flanagin AJ, Eyal K, Lemus DR, McCann RM. 2003.Credibility for the 21st century: integrating perspectives onsource, message, and media credibility in the contemporarymedia environment. In Kalbfleisc PJ (ed). Communication Year-book, Vol. 27. Lawrence Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ; 293–335.

Meuter ML, McCabe DB, Curran JM. 2013. Electronic word-of-mouth versus interpersonal word-of-mouth: are all forms ofword-of-mouth equally influential? Services Marketing Quar-terly 34: 240–256. DOI: 10.1080/15332969.2013.798201

Morgan RM, Hunt SD. 1994. The commitment–trust theory ofrelationship marketing. Journal of Marketing Research 58(3):20–38.

Mourali M, Laroche M, Pons F. 2005. Antecedents of consumerrelative preference for interpersonal information sources inpre-purchase search. Journal of Consumer Behavior 4(5):307–318.

Newhagen J. 1997. The role of feedback in the assessmentof news. Information Processing & Management 33(5):583–594.

Newhagen J, Nass C. 1989. Differential criteria for evaluating cred-ibility of newspapers and TV news. Journalism Quarterly 66(2):277–284.

Nunnally JC. 1978. Psychometric Theory, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill:New York.

Ohanian R. 1990. Construction and validation of a scale to measurecredibility. Journal of Advertising 19(3): 39–52.

Olson GM, Olson JS. 2000. Distance matters. Human ComputerInteraction 15: 139–179.

Pan L-Y, Chiou J-S. 2011. How much can you trust onlineinformation? Cues for perceived trustworthiness of consumer-generated online information. Journal of Interactive Marketing25(2): 67–74.

Paskin J. 2014. Saving Obamacare. Bloomberg BusinessweekMarch 10: 70–71.

Pavlou PA, Gefen D. 2004. Building effective online marketplaceswith institution-based trust. Information Systems Research15(1): 37–59.

Petty RE, Cacioppo JT, Schumann D. 1983. Central andperipheral routes to advertising effectiveness: the moderatingrole of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research 10(2):135–146.

Phelps JE, Lewis R, Mobilio L, Perry D, Raman N. 2004. Viralmarketing or electronic word-of-mouth advertising: examiningconsumer responses and motivations to pass along email. Jour-nal of Advertising Research 44(4): 333–348.

Riegner C. 2007. The impact of Web 2.0 on consumer purchase de-cisions. Journal of Advertising Research 47(4): 437–447. DOI:10.2501/s0021849907070456

Rieh SY, Belkin NJ. 1998. Understanding judgment ofinformation quality and cognitive authority in the WWW.Journal of the American Society for Information Sciences35: 279–289.

Rubin VL, Liddy ED. 2006. Assessing credibility of weblogs. InProceedings of the AAAI spring symposium: ComputationalApproaches to Analyzing Weblogs (CAAW).

Saxena A. 2011. Blogs and their impact on purchase intention: astructural equation modelling approach. Paradigm XV(1&2):102–110.

Sichtmann C. 2007. An analysis of antecedents and consequencesof trust in a corporate brand. European Journal of Marketing41(9/10): 999–1015. DOI: 10.1108/03090560710773318



DOI: 10.1002/cb


http://www.thinkwithgoogle.com/research-studies/2011-winning-zmot-ebook.html

http://www.thinkwithgoogle.com/research-studies/2011-winning-zmot-ebook.html

Slater MD, Rouner D. 1996. How message evaluation and sourceattributes may influence credibility assessment and beliefchange. Journalism and Mass Communications Quarterly 73(4): 974–991.

Sonquist JA, Dunkelberg WC. 1977. Survey and Opinion Research:Procedure for Processing and Analysis. Prentice Hall:Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

SPSS White Paper. 1998. Using SPSS for item analysis: morereliable test assessment using statistics. Retrieved from http://pages.infinit.net/rlevesqu/Syntax/Item Analysis/UsingSPSSforItemAnalysis.pdf [Accessed on 24 June 2012].

Stanford J, Tauber ER, Fogg BJ, Marable L. 2002. ConsumerWebwatch. Retrieved 6 July 2007 from http://www.equiden.no/getfile.php/31086.69/Fogg+-+Experts+view+website+cred-dibility.pdf.

Sundar SS, Nass C. 2001. Conceptualizing sources in online news.Journal of Communication 51(1): 52.

Tan W-K, Chang Y-C. 2012. Improving users’ credibility percep-tion of travel expert blogs: useful lessons from television travelshows. Information Research 18(2): 1–15.

Tanis M, Postmes T. 2005. A social identity approach to trust: inter-personal perception, group membership, and trusting behavior.European Journal of Social Psychology 35: 413–424.

Technorati. 2013. 2013 Digital Influence Report. Retrieved 28March 2014 from the Technorati website: http://technorati.com/blogging/state-of-the-blogosphere//.

Thach L. 2009. Wine 2.0 – the next phase of wine marketing? Ex-ploring US winery adoption of wine 2.0 components. Journalof Wine Research 20(2): 143–157.

Thach L. 2010. Wine blogs: expressing diverse wine opinions in anew realm of online wine relationship marketing. Refereed paper– 5th International Academy of Wine Business Research Confer-ence, 8–10 Feb. 2010 Auckland, NZ.

Tian KT, Bearden WO, Hunter GL. 2001. Consumers’ need foruniqueness: scale development and validation. Journal ofConsumer Research 28(1): 50–66. DOI: 10.1086/321947

Van der Heijden H, Verhagen T, Creemers M. 2003. Understandingonline purchase intentions: contributions from technology and

trust perspectives. European Journal of Information Systems12(1): 41–48.

Vinography. 2014. The complete list of wine blogs. Retrieved 20March 2014 from http://www.vinography.com/wine_blog_list.html.

Wang C-C, Chien H-Y. 2012. Believe or skepticism? An empiricalstudy on individual’s attitude to blog product review. Interna-tional Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology3(4): 343–348.

Warnick B. 2004. Online ethos: source credibility in an ‘authorlessenvironment’. American Behavioral Scientist 48(2): 256–265.

Wathan CN, Burkell J. 2002. Believe it or not: factors influencingcredibility on the Web. Journal of the American Society for In-formation Science and Technology 53(2): 134–144.

Watts DJ, Dodds PS. 2007. Influentials, networks, and public opinionformation. Journal of Consumer Research 34(Dec): 441–458.

Weerkamp W, de Rijke M. 2012. Credibility-inspired ranking forblog post retrieval. Information Retrieval 15: 243–277.

Wilson E. 2009. Bloggers crash fashion’s front row. The New YorkTimes. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/27/fashion/27BLOGGERS.html [Accessed on 17 January 2013].

Wilson D, Quinton S. 2012. Let’s talk about wine: does Twitterhave value? International Journal of Wine Business Research24(4): 271–286.

Wu W-L, Lee Y-C. 2012. The effect of blog trustworthiness, productattitude, and blog involvement on purchase intention. InternationalJournal of Management & Information Systems 16(3): 265–275.

Yang KCC. 2007. Factors influencing Internet users’ perceivedcredibility of news-related blogs in Taiwan. Telematics andInformatics 24: 69–85.

Young L, Albaum J. 2003. Developing a measure of trust insalesperson/customer relationships in direct selling. Journal ofPersonal Selling and Sales Management 24(3): 253–269.

Zafiropoulos K. 2012. Wine blogs influence and blogs’ communityconnectivity: a social network analysis. European Journal ofTourism, Hospitality, and Recreation 3(1): 135–156.

Zeithaml VA, Berry LL, Parasuraman A. 1996. The behavioral con-sequences of service quality. Journal of Marketing 60(2): 31–46.



DOI: 10.1002/cb

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/27/fashion/27BLOGGERS.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/27/fashion/27BLOGGERS.html

Documents

Credibility in the blogosphere: A study of measurement and ...€¦ · related reasons. First, the social context of wine motivates people to seek information in order to make a correct