東華大學圖書館 |

語系: 繁體中文

說明(常見問題)

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

登入

回首頁

切換: 標籤 | MARC模式 | ISBD

The effect of cognitive dissonance o...

Liang, Yuhua.

FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

The effect of cognitive dissonance on the selection of post-decision online reviews: Congeniality bias and refutational perspectives.

紀錄類型:	書目-語言資料,印刷品 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	The effect of cognitive dissonance on the selection of post-decision online reviews: Congeniality bias and refutational perspectives./
作者:	Liang, Yuhua.
面頁冊數:	81 p.
附註:	Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 75-08(E), Section: A.
Contained By:	Dissertation Abstracts International75-08A(E).
標題:	Speech Communication. -
電子資源:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3617194
ISBN:	9781303843396

The effect of cognitive dissonance on the selection of post-decision online reviews: Congeniality bias and refutational perspectives.
Liang, Yuhua.

The effect of cognitive dissonance on the selection of post-decision online reviews: Congeniality bias and refutational perspectives. - 81 p.

Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 75-08(E), Section: A.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Michigan State University, 2014.

Cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957; Festinger, 1964) posits that individuals may experience cognitive dissonance after they make a decision, and cognitive dissonance is heightened when the decision is important. Individuals may reduce their dissonance by (a) finding information that supports the original decision (i.e., expressing a congeniality bias) or (b) finding weak information that contradicts the decision and refutes that information. Online consumers may experience cognitive dissonance after making an important product decision. The first hypothesis proposes that when selecting online reviews, consumers prefer congenial reviews to address their cognitive dissonance. Alternative hypotheses propose that consumers may select uncongenial reviews using online message cues related to helpfulness ratings and credibility badges. Specifically, individuals may reduce cognitive dissonance by preferring reviews rated as unhelpful by other readers and reviews from authors without credibility badges. An original experiment induced decision importance as a means of producing cognitive dissonance. The induction elicited differences in only 2 of 5 measures assessing cognitive dissonance. Futhermore, results showed that participants did not differ in how they selected reviews between the unimportant and the important decision conditions. However, the results demonstrated an overall congeniality bias. In addition, participants preferred reviews rated as helpful and reviews written by authors with credibility badges to reviews rated as unhelpful and from authors without credibility badges. Future research proposes to examine the connection between cognitive dissonance and other sources of influence in participatory websites.

ISBN: 9781303843396Subjects--Topical Terms:

1017408
Speech Communication.

The effect of cognitive dissonance on the selection of post-decision online reviews: Congeniality bias and refutational perspectives.
LDR:02709nam a2200289 4500 001 1962899
005 20140829084626.5
008 150210s2014 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9781303843396
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI3617194
035 $a AAI3617194
040 $a MiAaPQ $c MiAaPQ
100 1 $a Liang, Yuhua. $3 1032096
245 1 4 $a The effect of cognitive dissonance on the selection of post-decision online reviews: Congeniality bias and refutational perspectives.
300 $a 81 p.
500 $a Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 75-08(E), Section: A.
500 $a Adviser: Joseph B. Walther.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--Michigan State University, 2014.
520 $a Cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957; Festinger, 1964) posits that individuals may experience cognitive dissonance after they make a decision, and cognitive dissonance is heightened when the decision is important. Individuals may reduce their dissonance by (a) finding information that supports the original decision (i.e., expressing a congeniality bias) or (b) finding weak information that contradicts the decision and refutes that information. Online consumers may experience cognitive dissonance after making an important product decision. The first hypothesis proposes that when selecting online reviews, consumers prefer congenial reviews to address their cognitive dissonance. Alternative hypotheses propose that consumers may select uncongenial reviews using online message cues related to helpfulness ratings and credibility badges. Specifically, individuals may reduce cognitive dissonance by preferring reviews rated as unhelpful by other readers and reviews from authors without credibility badges. An original experiment induced decision importance as a means of producing cognitive dissonance. The induction elicited differences in only 2 of 5 measures assessing cognitive dissonance. Futhermore, results showed that participants did not differ in how they selected reviews between the unimportant and the important decision conditions. However, the results demonstrated an overall congeniality bias. In addition, participants preferred reviews rated as helpful and reviews written by authors with credibility badges to reviews rated as unhelpful and from authors without credibility badges. Future research proposes to examine the connection between cognitive dissonance and other sources of influence in participatory websites.
590 $a School code: 0128.
650 4 $a Speech Communication. $3 1017408
650 4 $a Psychology, Cognitive. $3 1017810
650 4 $a Web Studies. $3 1026830
690 $a 0459
690 $a 0633
690 $a 0646
710 2 $a Michigan State University. $b Communication. $3 1680457
773 0 $t Dissertation Abstracts International $g 75-08A(E).
790 $a 0128
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2014
793 $a English
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3617194