Content uploaded by Yang Cheng
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Yang Cheng on Oct 15, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Consumer response to fake news about brands
on social media: the effects of self-efficacy,
media trust, and persuasion knowledge on
brand trust
Zifei Fay Chen
Department of Communication Studies, University of San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA, and
Yang Cheng
Department of Communication, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA
Abstract
Purpose –Drawing on theoretical insights from the persuasion knowledge model (PKM), this study aims to propose and test a model that maps out
the antecedents, process and consequences to explain how consumers process and respond to fake news about brands on Facebook.
Design/methodology/approach –Contextualizing the fake news about Coca-Cola’s recall of Dasani water, an online survey was conducted via
Qualtrics with consumers in the USA (N= 468). Data were analyzed using covariance-based structural equation modeling.
Findings –Results showed that self-efficacy and media trust significantly predicted consumers’persuasion knowledge of the fake news. Persuasion
knowledge of the fake news significantly influenced consumers’perceived diagnosticity of the fake news and subsequent brand trust. Furthermore,
persuasion knowledge of the fake news mediated the effects from self-efficacy on perceived diagnosticity of the fake news and brand trust, respectively.
Originality/value –This study contributes to the literature of brand management by examining how consumers process and respond to fake news about a
brand. It also extends the persuasion knowledge model by applying it to the context of fake news about brands on social media, and incorporating antecedents
(self-efficacy and media trust) and consequences (perceived diagnosticity and brand trust) of persuasion knowledge in this particular context. Practically, this
study provides insights to key stakeholders of brands to better understand consumers’information processing of fake news about brands on social media.
Keywords Brand trust, Social media, Self-efficacy, Persuasion knowledge, Fake news
Paper type Research paper
In April 2016, the website “News 4 KTLA”reported that
Coca-Cola was recalling its product Dasani water because of
some clear parasites found in bottles distributed across the
USA. Later, the news was revealed to be untrue and Coca-Cola
issued its response regarding this hoax (Evon, 2016).
Nevertheless, this misinformation was rapidly transmitted on
social media, even after the news was identified as fake. Coca-
Cola is not the only company that has been exposed to the
threat of fake news. In a recent North American
Communication Monitor report, more than 20 per cent of the
1,200 surveyed communication professionals indicated that
fake news had impacted their organizational reputation (Reber
et al.,2018). Among them, 80 per cent also noted that fake
news was published and transmitted on social media such as
Facebook, Twitter and blogs (Reber et al.,2018).
The wide spreading of fake news about brands and companies
on social media as shown in the abovementioned case and
research results is concerning in today’s society. While the
interactivity and ease of information transmission on social media
have provided brand managers powerful tools to better engage
with consumer, these features have also allowed fake news to get
transmitted more easily without prudent editorial judgment. Fake
news such as the one involving Coca-Cola’s case may reduce
consumers’trust in companies and brands. Such threats raise the
urgency for brand managers to better understand how consumers
process and respond to fake news about brands on social media.
Undoubtedly, the impact of fake news on society reaches
beyond the realm of brand management and has compelled
scholars to analyze its transmission process and outcomes
(Burkhardt, 2017;Vargo et al.,2017). While fake news itself is
not a new phenomenon, the scale of its impact has been
drastically magnified owing to the increased speed of its
transmission (Burkhardt, 2017). Traditionally, fake news is
primarily spread via word of mouth, written words and printed
media, but the prevalent use of internet and social media
nowadays has provided fertile ground for fake news to be
transmitted more easily and to a larger extent (Burkhardt, 2017).
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on
Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/1061-0421.htm
Journal of Product & Brand Management
© Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421]
[DOI 10.1108/JPBM-12-2018-2145]
An earlier version of this paper was at the 26th International Public
Relations Research Symposium (BledCom) in July, 2019 in Lake Bled,
Slovenia.
Received 1 December 2018
Revised 7 May 2019
Accepted 28 June 2019
The algorithm on social media allows accounts to target like-
minded individuals based on their browsing and interaction (e.g.
clicks, shares) history and to spread fake news that corresponds to
one’s social circle and prior beliefs. A computational analysis of
online mediascape from 2014 to 2016 showed that fake news was
especially entwined with partisan media (Vargo et al.,2017).
Such transmission processes of fake news online, and especially
on social media, has brought detrimental outcomes including
reinforced echo chambers and escalated distrust in public
institutions (Field, 2018).
Although the unprecedented scale of fake news has brought
more scholarly attention in recent years, most studies focused on
the public policy and political communication perspectives (Jang
and Kim, 2018;Vargo et al.,2017). Relatively little research has
investigated fake news in the context of brand management and
communication. In reviews of the relationship between fake news
and brands, Berthon and Pitt (2018) pointed out that brands can
both be the enhancers and victims of fake news. On one hand,
brands may directly or indirectly fund fake news via the targeted
popular sites, many of which may be carrying fake news. On the
other hand, brands themselves may be the target of fake news,
such as in the case of Coca-Cola and Dasani water; they may also
be contaminated by associations if they appear next to fake news
(Berthon and Pitt, 2018;Berthon et al.,2018). The latter was
empirically examined; results showed there was indeed a chain of
effect from fake news on consumers’trust toward brands that
appeared next to fake news, and such effects were mediated by
the credibility of the news and sources (Visentin et al.,2019).
Berthon and colleagues (Berthon and Pitt, 2018;Berthon et al.,
2018) laid important groundwork for the investigation of brand
management in the face of fake news proliferation and proposed
viable solutions, yet more research is called for to provide a better
understanding on the impact of fake news and build a systematic
approach to combat fake news (Reber et al.,2018).
To answer the above-mentioned call and contribute to the
body of knowledge regarding brand management and fake
news (Berthon and Pitt, 2018;Berthon et al.,2018), this study
draws theoretical insights from the the persuasion knowledge
model (Friestad and Wright, 1994). As a theoretical model that
is widely applied in marketing and advertising (Ham et al.,
2015), the persuasion knowledge model explains consumers’
coping mechanism when exposed to messages. It posits that a
message’s persuasive outcomes would be influenced by
message receivers’knowledge of the marketing and advertising
related issues (i.e. persuasion knowledge), knowledge of the
message senders’traits and goals (i.e. agent knowledge) and
knowledge of the message topic (i.e. topic knowledge) (Friestad
and Wright, 1994). Because the goal of fake news oftentimes is
to persuade rather than to inform the public (Tandoc et al.,
2018, p. 147), the persuasion knowledge model would also be
able to lend important insights in understanding how
consumers process the message contained in fake news about
brands. Extending the insights from the persuasion knowledge
model, we propose a model that maps out the antecedents,
process and consequences when consumers are exposed to fake
news about a brand on Facebook. Specifically, the model
focuses on the role that persuasion knowledge plays in fake
news’impact on consumers’brand trust. It further delineates
how consumers’self-efficacy (i.e. self-evaluation of what one
candowithobtainedskills[Bandura, 1997]) on identifying fake
news and media trust predicts their persuasion knowledge of the
fake news they are exposed to and how persuasion knowledge
impacts their perceived diagnosticity (i.e. relevance and
usefulness of information [Ahluwalia et al.,2001]) of the fake
news and subsequent brand trust. Previous studies have
pinpointed the importance of cultivating efficacy and
persuasion knowledge in media literacy education to combat
fake news (Burkhardt, 2017;Lee, 2018), yet no empirical
research has been conducted to apply persuasion knowledge
model to the fake news context. By proposing and testing a
model that applies the persuasion knowledge model in the
context of fake news about brands, this study contributes both
to the growing body of knowledge of persuasion knowledge
model and our understanding on how consumers would process
and respond tofake news about brands on social media.
In the following sections, we will first review fake news, the
persuasion knowledge model and provide the linkage among
different constructs in the model from which six hypotheses are
derived. We will then present the method and results of the
study, followed by a discussion on the implications for brand
management scholars, professionals and key stakeholders.
Literature review
Defining fake news
The concept of “fake news”is not new. The wide spreading of
fake news in recent years, however, has resulted in a distinct
definition in current literature from earlier definitions (Tandoc
et al., 2018). A review of literature containing the term “fake
news”from 2003 to 2017 has yielded the typology of fake news
that includes news satire, news parody, fabrication, manipulation,
advertising and propaganda (Tandoc et al., 2018). These
different forms of fake news may be placed in two dimensions:
facticity (i.e. the degree to which the information in the news
relies on facts) and intention to mislead (Tandoc et al., 2018).
This study focuses on fake news about brands in the form of
fabrication, which has low facticity and high intention to mislead.
This typology follows the more widely used current definition of
fake news regarding it as “fabricated information that mimics
news media content in form but not in organizational process or
intent”(Lazer et al., 2018,p.1094).Specifically, in this study, the
fabricated information was the news about Coca-Cola’s recall of
Dasani water mentioned at the beginning of this article.
Social media has played a significant role in the impact that
fake news has on society today, as it not only provides the
platform for fake news to be transmitted more easily and to a
larger extent butalso challenges the traditional definition of news
itself (Tandoc et al., 2018). On social media, the information
source gets blurred and a piece of information may be shared by
multiple sources (Kang et al., 2011). The algorithm of this
process allows posts with higher popularity (e.g. in the form of
more likes and shares) to further fuel unverified information to
be distributed and mistaken as legitimate information (Lokot
and Diakopoulos, 2016). To reflect the role of social media, this
study contextualized the fake news about Coca-Cola’s recall of
Dasani water in the form of a Facebook post.
To combat fake news, solutions and interventions are
proposed from both the perspectives of individuals (e.g. media
literacy education) and technology (e.g. improving algorithm of
platforms) (Berthon and Pitt, 2018;Burkhardt, 2017;Lazer
Consumer response to fake news about brands on social media
Zifei Fay Chen and Yang Cheng
Journal of Product & Brand Management
et al., 2018). Specifically, from the perspective of individuals,
research has emphasized the importance of empowering
individuals and cultivating persuasion knowledge and skepticism
(Burkhardt, 2017;Lee, 2018), as individuals’information
processing of fake news is often clouded by their confirmation
bias (i.e. the tendency to believe in what is consistent with their
prior attitude) and desirability bias (i.e. the tendency to believe
in what pleases them) (Lazer et al.,2018). As such, the
persuasion knowledge model, a theoretical framework that
explains consumers’processing mechanism when exposed to
persuasion messages (Friestad and Wright, 1994), would be an
appropriate theoretical framework to inform our understanding
of how consumers process fake news about brands.
The persuasion knowledge model
The persuasion knowledge model is a consumer behavior theory
that explains consumers’coping and processing mechanism when
exposed to persuasion episodes such as marketing and advertising
strategies (Friestad and Wright, 1994). Specifically, consumers
would draw from three knowledge structures that determine the
persuasion outcomes (Friestad and Wright, 1994;Ham et al.,
2015): persuasion knowledge, agent knowledge and topic
knowledge. Persuasion knowledge refers to the knowledge
consumers have about various advertising and marketing-related
issues such as their beliefs about message senders’goals and
tactics and their appropriateness, as well as their own coping goals
and mechanisms (Hibbert et al.,2007). Agent knowledge refers to
consumers’beliefs about the persuasion agent’s (e.g. advertiser
and salesperson) traits, competencies and goals, whereas topic
knowledge refers to consumers’beliefs about the message topic
such as product, service and social causes (Friestad and Wright,
1994). Persuasion knowledge model can be applied to explain the
persuasion process for both the target (i.e. message receivers such
as consumers) and the agent (i.e. message senders such as the
advertiser) as the target attempts to best cope with a persuasion
episode, and the agent tries to choose an appropriate persuasion
tactic (Friestad and Wright, 1994;Ham et al.,2015). In this
study, we focus on the application of persuasion knowledge model
for the target’s (i.e. consumers) processing mechanism.
Over the years, the persuasion knowledge model has been
widely applied and empirically tested in the context of
advertising and marketing from various perspectives (Campbell
and Kirmani, 2000;Ham et al.,2015;Skard and Thorbjørnsen,
2014). As persuasion knowledge embodies people’s belief and
evaluation of the goals, tactics and appropriateness of messages,
the persuasion knowledge model can throw light on our
understanding of how consumers process and respond to fake
news about brands. By applying persuasion knowledge model in
the context of fake news about brands on social media, this
study adds to the heuristic value of persuasion knowledge model
by extending it to a new realm. Drawing on theoretical insights
from studies on fake news and brand management, this study
also expands the framework of persuasion knowledge model via
the linkage between persuasion knowledge and its antecedents
and consequences in the context of social media fake news.
In the following sections, we first operationalize persuasion
knowledge in the context of fake news about brands. We then
conceptualize and build the linkage between each key construct
and persuasion knowledge. These key constructs include self-
efficacy and media trust as antecedents of persuasion knowledge
and message diagnosticity and brand trust as consequences of
persuasion knowledge. Finally, we examine fake news’impact
on consumers’brand trust through a proposed model (Figure 1).
Persuasion knowledge
Although persuasion knowledge model has been widely applied
in previous studies, no single, unified measure has been used to
assess persuasion knowledge because of its multidimensional
nature and varied application in different contexts (Campbell
and Kirmani, 2008;Ham et al.,2015). In a systematic review of
persuasion knowledge measures, Ham et al. (2015) categorized
previous persuasion knowledge measures into two types:
dispositional persuasion knowledge that is formed through
individuals’various interactions with persuasion attempts in his/
her lifetime and situational persuasion knowledge that alters
when consumers cope with different persuasion tactics. This
study operationalizes persuasion knowledge from the situational
perspective because this type of persuasion knowledge is more
often used for them to assess information from biased (vs
independent) sources (Kirmani and Zhu, 2007).
Specifically, we assess persuasion knowledge of the fake news
about Coca-Cola on Facebook based on inference of manipulative
intent (Campbell, 1995) and consumers’skepticism toward the
Facebook post (adopted from skepticism toward advertising tactics;
Rossiter, 1977). This approach was previously used to measure
persuasion knowledge in the context of nonprofit communication
(Hibbert et al., 2007) and corporate social responsibility
communication (Skard and Thorbjørnsen, 2014). The measure is
appropriate for this study because it measures consumers’
situational persuasion knowledge of the specificfakenews.
Self-efficacy and persuasion knowledge
The concept of self-efficacy refers to a form of self-evaluation,
which reflects what people believe they can do with obtained
skills (Bandura, 1997). For instance, computer self-efficacy
means individuals believe that they can accomplish required
skills such as using software and analyzing data (Compeau and
Higgins, 1999). Communication scholars also proposed that
self-efficacy was context-driven: self-efficacy in the context of
privacy focused on what individuals believe they can do to
protect personal privacy(Chen and Chen, 2015); internet self-
efficacy means the perception of a person’s ability to
accomplish tasks online (Eastin and LaRose, 2000). In this
study, self-efficacy was defined as consumers’perception on
their ability to identify/verify fake news and to prevent receiving
and sharing misinformation.
Figure 1 Conceptual model and hypotheses
Consumer response to fake news about brands on social media
Zifei Fay Chen and Yang Cheng
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Previous research found that self-efficacy was a predictor of
consumer behaviors such as providing self-information for
personalized services, technology acceptance and controllability
(Sundar and Marathe, 2010;Wasko and Faraj, 2005). It is also
important to note that self-efficacy was a key individual
character, which could have an impact on the ability to activate
consumers’persuasive knowledge by self-recognizing the
persuasive nature of advertising messages (Golovacheva, 2016;
Kahle and Gurel-Atay, 2015). Therefore, in this study, we
hypothesized that a higher level of self-efficacy could help
activate a higher level of persuasive knowledge of the Facebook
post that contains fake newsabout the brand. H1 was proposed:
H1. Consumers’self-efficacy positively influences their
persuasion knowledge of the fake news post on Facebook.
Media trust and persuasion knowledge
With the booming development of social media, media
abundance and audience fragmentation have threatened the
power of the mass media and news credibility. This
phenomenon emerged as an important topic, especially after
the 2016 US presidential election (Engel, 2017;Turcotte et al.,
2015). According to a recent survey research from the Pew
Research Center, individuals are becoming more skeptical of
mainstream media because of their different political ideologies
(Engel, 2017). With the wide and rapid spread of fake news,
social media platforms such as Facebook also fell into crises, as
they have played a major role in transmitting misinformation
(Silverman, 2016). Therefore, it is important to study media
trust in a society where distrust toward media outlets is
escalating (Speed and Mannion, 2017).
In this study, we focus on Facebook, one of the most popular
social media sites in the USA. Recent research further suggests
that media trust significantly influences outcomes such as
information-seeking behaviors (Turcotte et al.,2015), attention
to news (Williams, 2012) and political voting behavior (Ladd,
2010). In the business context, scholars also found that media
trust was significantly related to persuasion knowledge. When
consumers retain a low level of trust toward a certain media
outlet, their persuasion knowledge such as inference of
manipulative intent and skepticism toward media messages tend
to increase (Nelson et al.,2009). Therefore, H2 was proposed:
H2. Consumers’trust in Facebook negatively influences their
persuasion knowledge of the fake news post on Facebook.
Persuasion knowledge and information diagnosticity
Diagnosticity refers to how individuals perceive the relevance
and usefulness of information when they form judgment and
decisions (Ahluwalia et al.,2001;Miniard et al.,1992). Past
research in psychology and consumer behavior has examined
diagnosticity as an outcome after message exposure and a
process between such exposure and consumers’subsequent
attitude and behavior (Ahluwalia et al.,2001;Klar, 1990;Pullig
et al.,2006). Previous research suggested that consumers’
persuasion knowledge of rhetorical questions (Ahluwalia and
Burnkrant, 2004) and word-of-mouth (Herr et al., 1991) will
influence their evaluation of the information diagnosticity.
Thus, H3 was proposed as follows:
H3. Consumers’persuasion knowledge of a fake news post
negatively influences their perceived diagnosticity of the
post.
Furthermore, as the previous sections suggested, consumers’
self-efficacy would positively influence their persuasion
knowledge of the information (i.e. Facebook post). Therefore,
we would also expect an indirect effect from self-efficacy on the
perceived diagnosticity of the fake news Facebook post:
H4. Consumers’self-efficacy negatively and indirectly
influences perceived diagnosticity of the fake news post
on Facebook.
Self-efficacy, persuasion knowledge and brand trust
In the past literature of brand management, trust was defined as
“consumers’affect-based experience of a particular brand”
(Karjaluoto et al.,2016, p. 529). As a necessary precondition of
consumer-brand relationship, scholars found that trust could
help reduce uncertainty, facilitate positive attitudes and build
long-term commitment, strong loyalty and brand love
(Drennan et al.,2015;Matzler et al., 2008). In this study, we
regard brand trust as consumers’level of mutual confidence in
the brand (Shen, 2017).
Previous studies suggested consumers’trust toward a
particular brand is gradually built on previous encounters and
interactions with the brand (Albert and Merunka, 2013). If
consumers make negative inferences of manipulative intent
(IMI) from retailers, their perceived persuasion knowledge is
high and the trust of the brands’integrity decreases (Lunardo
and Mbengue, 2013). Wei et al. (2008) found that persuasion
knowledge could also positively influence consumers’
evaluation of the embedded brand if the perceived media
messages on the brand were appropriate. In this study, we
hypothesized that if consumers have high persuasion
knowledge of the Facebook post and thus suspect this news as
fake, their trust toward the brand itself would increase.
Therefore, a positive relationship between consumers’
persuasive knowledge of the fake news Facebook post and
brand trust is hypothesized in H5a. In addition, as previous
studies on diagnosticity suggested it to be the process through
which consumers adjust their judgment and decision about a
brand after exposure to brand information (Pham and
Muthukrishnan, 2002;Pullig et al., 2006), H5b was proposed
to delineate the negative effect from perceived diagnosticity of
the fake news Facebook post on brand trust:
H5. Consumers’brand trust is (a) positively impacted by
persuasion knowledge and (b) negatively impacted by
perceived diagnosticity of the fake news post on Facebook.
Furthermore, an indirect effect from self-efficacy on brand trust
will occur through the process of persuasion knowledge (as
shown in Figure 1). When consumers possess a high level of
self-efficacy, they have a sufficient amount of knowledge to
identify persuasion intent of messages. Consequently,
consumers’brand trust is not likely to be impacted by the fake
news and will stay positive. Therefore, H6 is proposed:
H6. Consumers’self-efficacy positively and indirectly
influences brand trust.
Consumer response to fake news about brands on social media
Zifei Fay Chen and Yang Cheng
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Method
Research design and method
To test the proposed hypotheses, a survey study was conducted
online. The survey method served as an appropriate method for
research purposes of this study, as it samples individual units
from US consumers regarding their perceptions and attitudes
(Wrench et al.,2013) toward fake news about brands on social
media. At the outset of this survey, all participants were
presented the context of this study, and an example screenshot
of such fake news was shown regarding Coca-Cola’s recall of
Dasani water because of contamination by parasites, a news
spread in 2016 that was identified as fake later on (see
Appendix for the text body included in the example
screenshot). This example facilitated participants’
understanding of the research background and improved
accuracy of their responses (Babbie, 2016). Such an approach
has been adopted by previous survey studies in marketing and
communication (Chen et al.,2019;Cheng et al., 2015).
Several multiple-choice questions were also used for the
online survey quality control. Participants then proceeded to
answer measures regarding media trust, persuasion knowledge,
perceived diagnosticity and brand trust. Demographic
information was collected at the end of the survey and
participants were all debriefed about the untrue nature of the
news.
Target population and sampling
To examine how consumers in the USA process fake news
about brands on social media, and how consumers’brand trust
is impacted by fake news, we programed the questionnaire
online and purchased a consumer panel from Qualtrics, a
technology platform and market research company that
arranges sampling from the US consumer population based on
the Census data. The consumer panel of Qualtrics has been
widely used in brand management and communication survey
studies (Chen et al.,2019;Westhuizen, 2018). The panel
yielded 468 qualifying responses (2,665 choices). Among the
468 participants, 246 (52.6 per cent) identified themselves as
male, and 222 (47.4 per cent) identified themselves as female.
The average age was 47 years old (SD = 18.57, ranging from 18
to 84). Regarding education, the majority of participants (68.6
per cent) did not have a bachelor’s degree, and 31.4 per cent
held a bachelor’s or more advanced degrees. The majority of
the participants identified themselves as Caucasian/White
(non-Hispanic) (61.8 per cent), followed by Latino/Hispanic
(19.0 per cent), Black/African American (non-Hispanic) (10.7
per cent) and Asian/Pacific Islander (6.0 per cent). The
majority of participants (70.5 per cent) had an annual income
of below US$60,000.
Measurement instrument
All measures were adopted from previous studies and tested for
internal consistency. Among them, self-efficacy, media trust,
persuasion knowledge and brand trust were measured on five-
point Likert-type scales anchored by one being “strongly
disagree”and five being “strongly agree,”and diagnosticity was
measured on a five-point semantic differential scale. Self-
efficacy was measured by four items adopted from Wei et al.
(2010) (
a
= 0.80). Media trust in this study specifically
measured consumers’trust toward the particular medium (i.e.
Facebook) that carried the message about the brand, and it was
measured by four items adopted from Chen et al. (2019) (
a
=
0.88). The measure of persuasion knowledge comprised four
items (
a
= 0.80) adopted from Hibbert et al. (2007) and Skard
and Thorbjørnsen (2014), where combined measures of IMI
(Campbell, 1965) and skepticism toward advertising tactics
(Rossiter, 1977) were used. Consumers’evaluation of the
Facebook post’sdiagnosticity was measured by three items
adopted from Ahluwalia et al. (2001) and Klar (1990) (
a
=
0.93). Brand trust was measured by four items modified from
Shen (2017) (
a
= 0.90). See Table I for a summary of the
measurement instrument used in this study.
Data collection and analysis
A pilot study was first carried out with 100 participants in
November 2018. Then an additional 2,665 participants were
recruited on Qualtrics’online survey panel, and 468 qualifying
responses were finally analyzed for hypotheses testing using
maximum-likelihood, covariance-based structural equation
modeling (SEM). The covariance-based SEM approach was
used because this study provides a set of hypotheses informed
by previous theoretical frameworks and contains a sufficient
sample size, both of which are conditions that fit the use of
covariance-based SEM (Reinartz et al., 2009).
Results
Prior to hypotheses testing, descriptive statistics (means and
standard deviations) were tested for each of the constructs and
associated indicators (see Table I for complete results of
descriptive statistics). To test the proposed model and
hypotheses, the SEM approach was adopted using Mplus
version 8.1. Following a two-stage process, a confirmatory
factor analysis (CFA) was first conducted to assess the
robustness of the measurement, followed by a structural model
to test the proposed hypotheses.
Confirmatory factor analysis
Five constructs were measured and specified as latent variables
in the model: Self-efficacy, media trust, persuasion knowledge,
diagnosticity and brand trust. A CFA was therefore modeled by
allowing all five latent variables to freely covary. Results
indicated satisfactory model-data fit and suggested desired
validity:
x
2
(N= 468, 142) = 322.03, p<0.001,
x
2
/df = 2.33,
RMSEA = 0.05 (90 per cent CI: 0.05-0.06), SRMR = 0.04,
CFI = 0.96 and TLI = 0.96. Table I shows the results from
CFA and internal consistency of each latent variable’s
measurement items, with all factor loadings greater than 0.60
and all Cronbach’s alpha greater than 0.70. The measurement
model was therefore retained for structural modeling and
hypotheses testing in the following step.
Structural model analysis and hypotheses testing
Following CFA, the proposed hypotheses were tested in a
structural model. The proposed structural model showed
satisfactory model-data fit:
x
2
(N= 468, 340) = 366.25, p<
0.001,
x
2
/df = 1.08, RMSEA = 0.06 (90 per cent CI:
0.05-0.07), SRMR = 0.07, CFI = 0.96 and TLI = 0.95. Each
path was then analyzed for hypotheses testing.
Consumer response to fake news about brands on social media
Zifei Fay Chen and Yang Cheng
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Direct effects:H1 proposed a direct effect from consumers’self-
efficacy on persuasion knowledge. The path results showed that
self-efficacy (M= 3.51 and SD = 0.78) had a positive influence
on persuasion knowledge (M= 3.47 and SD = 0.79). As self-
efficacy increases, consumers’persuasion knowledge of the
Facebook post also increases, B = 0.36, SE = 0.05 and p<
0.001. H1 was supported.
H2 predicted a direct effect from consumers’media trust on
persuasion knowledge. Results demonstrated a significant
positive effect. In this study, as consumers’trust in Facebook
(M = 2.91 and SD = 0.87) increases, their persuasion
knowledge of the Facebook post also increases, B = 0.20,
SE = 0.05 and p<0.001. H2 was supported.
H3 posited a negative direct effect from persuasion
knowledge on consumers’evaluation of the Facebook post’s
diagnosticity. Path results showed that as persuasion
knowledge increases, evaluation of the post’s diagnosticity
(M = 2.77 and SD = 1.20) decreases, B = 0.66, SE = 0.03
and p<0.001. Therefore, H3 was supported.
H5a and H5b predicted the effects from persuasion
knowledge and diagnosticity of Facebook post on brand
trust, respectively. Results showed that persuasion
knowledge positively influences brand trust (M = 3.66 and
SD = 0.73), B = 0.19, SE = 0.07 and p<0.01. H5a was
supported. However, the influence from diagnosticity on
brand trust was not significant, B = 0.09, SE = 0.07 and p=
0.19. H5b was not supported.
Indirect effects:H4 and H6 predicted indirect effects from self-
efficacy on diagnosticity and brand trust, respectively and were
tested through a bootstrapping procedure (N= 2,000). H4
predicted a negative indirect effect from self-efficacy on
diagnosticity. Bootstrapping results showed that the indirect
effect from self-efficacy on diagnosticity was significant, B =
0.34, p<0.001 and 95 per cent CI = 0.45-0.25, and such
indirect effect was fully mediated by persuasion knowledge. H4
was supported.
H6 predicted a positive indirect effect from self-efficacy on
brand trust. Results showed small but significant, positive
indirect effect from self-efficacy on brand trust, B = 0.07, p<
0.01 and 95 per cent CI = 0.04-0.11. Therefore, H6 was
supported. Figure 2 presents complete results of hypotheses
testing.
Discussion
This study examined the mechanism of how consumers
process and respond to fake news about brands on social
Table I Measurement instrument
Construct Item Factor loading
a
Mean SD
Self-efficacy
(a= 0.80)
Adopted from Wei et al. (2010)
(M = 3.51 and SD = 0.78)
I believe that I can identify misinformation by myself 0.80 3.40 0.93
I know how to verify misinformation by using media tools
such as Snopes.com for checking
0.69 3.45 1.09
I believe that I can post/share facts instead of
misinformation
0.74 3.69 0.94
I believe that I can reduce the likelihood of receiving/sharing
misinformation
0.64 3.49 0.98
Media trust
(a= 0.88)
Adopted from Cheng et al. (2018)
(M = 2.91 and SD = 0.87)
I believe that Facebook treats stakeholders like me fairly and
justly
0.74 2.88 0.94
Facebook can be relied on to keep its promises to
stakeholders like me
0.78 2.77 0.97
I feel very confident about Facebook’s capabilities 0.89 2.84 1.06
Facebook has the ability to accomplish what it says it will do 0.75 3.14 1.04
Persuasion knowledge (a= 0.80)
Adopted from Hibbert et al. (2007) and
Skard and Thorbjørnsen (2014)
(M = 3.47 and SD = 0.79)
The way this Facebook post tries to persuade people seems
acceptable to me
b
0.64 3.05 1.06
The Facebook post tells the truth
b
0.77 3.21 0.94
I like the Facebook post
b
0.80 3.49 1.04
I always believe what the poster says or does on Facebook
b
0.62 4.11 0.98
Diagnosticity
(a= 0.93)
Adopted from Ahluwalia et al. (2001)
and Klar (1990)
(M = 2.77 and SD = 1.20)
Extremely irrelevant –extremely relevant 0.83 2.78 1.31
Not at all helpful –extremely helpful 0.94 2.76 1.27
Not at all useful –of very great use 0.93 2.79 1.26
Brand trust
(a= 0.90)
Adopted from Shen (2017)
(M = 3.66, SD = 0.73)
I believe Coca-Cola treats stakeholders like me fairly and
justly
0.70 3.47 0.79
Coca-Cola can be relied on to keep its promises to
stakeholders like me
0.77 3.55 0.83
I feel very confident about Coca-Cola capabilities 0.92 3.76 0.87
Coca-Cola has the ability to accomplish what it says it will
do
0.86 3.88 0.83
Notes:
a
All factor loadings are significant at the level of p<0.001;
b
reverse coded
Consumer response to fake news about brands on social media
Zifei Fay Chen and Yang Cheng
Journal of Product & Brand Management
media and extended the applicability of the persuasion
knowledge model to the realm of social media fake news.
Specifically, we proposed and examined the antecedents and
outcomes of persuasion knowledge toward a fake news post
on Facebook about Coca-Cola’s recall of Dasani water.
Survey results showed support of the application of
persuasion knowledge model in the context of fake news
about brands on social media. Findings showed that self-
efficacy and trust in Facebook were significant predictors of
consumers’persuasion knowledge of the fake news
Facebook post. Persuasion knowledge significantly
influences consumers’perceived diagnosticity of the fake
news and their subsequent brand trust. Furthermore,
persuasion knowledge serves as the mediator of the effects
from self-efficacy on perceived diagnosticity of the fake news
and consumers’subsequent trust in Coca-Cola.
There are several important theoretical contributions from
this study. First, this study extended the application of
persuasion knowledge model to the context of fake news
about brands on social media. Previous studies mostly
examined persuasion knowledge model in the context of
advertising and marketing communications (Campbell and
Kirmani, 2000;Skard and Thorbjørnsen, 2014). By
extending the application of persuasion knowledge model to
explain how consumers process and respond to fake news
about brands on social media, this study adds to the heuristic
value of this framework.
Second, this study also expanded the framework of
persuasion knowledge model by examining the antecedents
(self-efficacy and media trust) and consequences (perceived
information diagnosticity and brand trust) of persuasion
knowledge. Results suggested consumers’self-efficacy on
their abilities to identify and verify fake news, and their trust
in the medium where the fake news is disseminated would
jointly influence their situational persuasion knowledge of
the fake news. Furthermore, persuasion knowledge also
serves as the mechanism of the influence from self-efficacy
andmediatrustonconsumers’perceived diagnosticity of
the fake news and brand trust. Findings not only suggested
the important role persuasion knowledge plays in
consumers’information processing mechanism of fake
news but also linked it with the antecedents and
consequences in the context of fake news about brands on
social media.
Furthermore, this study also enriched our understanding
of how consumers’brand trust is impacted by fake news on
social media. Findings suggest that although the effect was
relatively small, consumers’self-efficacy in identifying fake
news did significantly influence their brand trust after the
fake news exposure, and such effect was made possible
through the impact of self-efficacy on consumers’
persuasion knowledge of the fake news. Interestingly, the
path from perceived diagnosticity of the fake news on brand
trust was insignificant. Although persuasion knowledge of
the Facebook post significantly impacts perceived
diagnosticity of the news, it influences consumers’brand
trust directly rather than through perceived diagnosticity.
One explanation is that the role of diagnosticity is usually
examined as a predictor for attitude change and judgment
revision (Pham and Muthukrishnan, 2002;Pullig et al.,
2006). However, in this study, when consumers have high
persuasion knowledge of the fake news about Coca-Cola,
they would not adjust or change their attitudes toward the
brand. Rather, consumers’brand trust remains unchanged
after exposure to fake news because the high persuasion
knowledge prevented them from further processing of the
fake news information in attitude formation. This
postulation should be empirically tested in future studies.
Managerial implications
Through the application and extension of persuasion
knowledge model in the context of fake news about brands
on social media, this study provides several important
managerial implications for key stakeholders of a brand
(e.g. consumers, brand managers and regulators) in today’s
turbulent environment facing widespread fake news. First,
findings suggest that consumers’persuasion knowledge
plays an important role in combating the influence from
fake news about brands. As consumers’persuasion
knowledge about fake news increases, the impact from fake
news on brand trust significantly decreases. That is,
consumers’increased skepticism and inference of
manipulative intent toward the fake news would effectively
prevent the fake news from impacting subsequent brand
trust. Previous studies on persuasion knowledge in the
context of marketing and advertising suggest that the
increase of such persuasion knowledge about brand
information as presented in marketing communications or
advertising messages would prevent consumers from
forming favorable attitude about brands (Campbell and
Kirmani, 2008;Hibbert et al.,2007). Taken together, this
study suggests that consumers’persuasion knowledge is key
to determine whether the brand information, regardless of
whether it is presented in marketing communication
messages or fake news about the brand, could influence
their attitudes toward the brand. In addition to the insights
from previous studies suggesting brand managers to be
authentic in their communication to reduce such
skepticism, results from this study also suggest brand
managers to pinpoint certain cues in the fake news when
releasing real information to combat the potential
reputational damage caused by fake news. For consumers,
Figure 2 Structural model with path estimate results
Consumer response to fake news about brands on social media
Zifei Fay Chen and Yang Cheng
Journal of Product & Brand Management
maintaining skepticism toward information they receive
about brands would help them identify fake news from real,
authentic information. The manipulation inference they
identify for those who are sharing the information would
also help them differentiate real news that intends to inform
from fake news that intends to mislead. To reduce the wide
spread of fake news and its influence on social media, it is
important for consumers to develop such persuasion
knowledge and remain vigilant toward brand information
shared by various sources on social media.
Second, by examining consumers’self-efficacy in
identifyingfakenewsasanantecedentoftheirpersuasion
knowledge of the fake news, this study provides
implications on how such persuasion knowledge could be
enhanced. It is important to cultivate consumers’self-
efficacy to reduce their susceptibility toward fake news,
thereby reducing the impact from fake news on brand trust.
However, self-efficacy could take years to be cultivated
(Bandura, 1997). To combat the influence of fake news on
brand trust, it would take more than just brand
communications. Consumers’self-efficacy of identifying
fake news may be cultivated via media literacy education.
Media literacy refers to an individual’s competency and
knowledge to use, interpret and evaluate media
(Aufderheide, 1993;Masterman, 1985). The education of
media literacy would include cultivating one’scritical
thinking skills that analyze the source, purposes and
persuasive techniques of a message (Hobbs,2005, 2006).
Therefore, brand managers should also take into
consideration the importance of media literacy in
combating the influence from fake news, as it may help
increase consumers’self-efficacy. For example, they may
invest in corporate social responsibility initiatives that aim
at educating the public’s media literacy, which benefitboth
the brand and the society as a whole in the end. The insight
of cultivating self-efficacy via media literacy education also
provides implications for policymakers and regulators. It is
important to inform the public about the availability of
viable fact-checking tools and to encourage people to fully
read, process and evaluate information on social media
before sharing it with their networks (Burkhardt, 2017).
Such improved media literacy will empower consumers to
have higher self-efficacy at identifying fake news, thereby
improving their persuasion knowledge when exposed to
fake news about brands on social media.
Finally, the predicting role of media trust on consumers’
persuasion knowledge about fake news also throws light on
brand management when combating the influence of fake
news. As consumers’trust in Facebook decreases, their
persuasion knowledge of the fake news Facebook post
increases and they become more skeptical. To avoid being
misinformed and susceptible to fake news about brands,
consumers need to note the credibility and trustworthiness
of the media channel where a piece of information is
transmitted. It is important to keep in mind that
information shared on social media has not gone through
editorial judgment for fact-checking, and some information
may even be generated by bots disguised as common
consumers (Berthon and Pitt, 2018;Burkhardt, 2017;
Lazer et al., 2018). As such, brand managers may provide
additional information or put emphasis on the
trustworthiness of specific media channels, so that
consumers may make their own judgment about what to
believe and what to look for when they are exposed to brand
information on social media. Moreover, when
communicating the truth after fake news takes place (such
as Coca-Cola not having Dasani water recalled), brand
managers would need to weigh in the trustworthiness of
each media channel and choose the appropriate media
channels to communicate with consumers.
Limitations and future research
This study contributes to the literature of brand
management by exploring how consumers process and
respond to fake news about a brand. It also extends the
persuasion knowledge model by applying it in the context of
fake news about brands on social media and examining the
antecedents (self-efficacy and media trust) and
consequences (perceived diagnosticity and brand trust) of
persuasion knowledge in this context. However, this study
bears some limitations that need to be addressed in future
studies.
First, although the current study addresses persuasion
knowledge model in the context of fake news about brands
on social media, it primarily touched on one of the three
structures –persuasion knowledge –in persuasion
knowledge model. To further apply persuasion knowledge
modelinthiscontextandtoexaminethemodelmore
comprehensively, future research should also incorporate
the other two structures –agent knowledge and topic
knowledge into the model and further compare and explore
how each structure in persuasion knowledge model is
influenced by consumers’self-efficacyandinturninfluence
perceived diagnosticity of fake news and subsequent brand
trust.
Second, previous studies on the information processing of
fake news pointed out the influence from confirmation bias
and desirability bias, as people tend to be more susceptible
to information that confirms their previous belief and is
pleasant to hear (Lazer et al., 2018). These biases may result
in reduced persuasion knowledge. Therefore, future studies
should consider incorporating different brands with varying
initial trust level and examine how prior trust levels may
impact consumers’persuasion knowledge of fake news
about certain brands. In that way, the information
processing of fake news explained by persuasion knowledge
model may be connected with the biases pointed out by
previous research.
Last but not least, results from this study revealed the
connection between self-efficacy, media trust and
persuasion knowledge, thereby casting a light on the
importance of media literacy education. However, the
construct of media literacy was not directly examined in this
study. Therefore, future studies should also test the
connections among media literacy, self-efficacy and
persuasion knowledge to further delineate what may
influence consumers’persuasion knowledge when exposed
to fake news about brands on social media.
Consumer response to fake news about brands on social media
Zifei Fay Chen and Yang Cheng
Journal of Product & Brand Management
References
Ahluwalia, R. and Burnkrant, R.E. (2004), “Answering
questions about questions: a persuasion knowledge
perspective for understanding the effects of rhetorical
questions”,Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 31 No. 1,
pp. 26-42.
Ahluwalia, R., Unnava, H.R. and Burnkrant, R.E. (2001),
“The moderating role of commitment on the spillover effect
of marketing communications”,Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 458-470.
Albert, N. and Merunka, D. (2013), “The role of brand love in
consumer-brand relationships”,Journal of Consumer
Marketing, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 258-266.
Aufderheide, P. (1993), Media Literacy: A Report of the National
Leadership Conference on Media Literacy, Aspen Institute,
Aspen.
Babbie, E. (2016), The Practice of Social Research, 4th ed.,
Cengage Learning, Boston.
Bandura, A. (1997), Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control,W.H.
Freeman, New York, NY.
Berthon, P.R. and Pitt, L.F. (2018), “Brands, truthiness and
post-fact: managing brands in a post-rational world”,Journal
of Macromarketing, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 218-227.
Berthon, P.R., Treen, E.R. and Pitt, L.F. (2018), “How
truthiness, fake news and post-fact endanger brands and what
to do about it”,GfK Marketing Intelligence Review,Vol.10
No. 1, pp. 18-23.
Burkhardt, M.J. (2017), “Combating fake news in the digital
age”,Library Technology Reports, Vol. 53 No. 8, pp. 1-36.
Campbell, M.C. (1995), “When attention-getting advertising
tactics elicit consumer inferences of manipulative intent: the
importance of balancing benefits and investments”,Journal
of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 225-254.
Campbell, M.C. and Kirmani, A. (2000), “Consumers’use of
persuasion knowledge: the effects of accessibility and
cognitive capacity on perceptions of an influence agent”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 69-83.
Campbell, M.C. and Kirmani, A. (2008), “I know what you’re
doing and why you’re doing it: the use of the persuasion
knowledge model in consumer research”, in Haugtvedt,
C.P., Herr, P. and Kardes, F.R. (Eds), The Handbook of
Consumer Psychology, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
New York, NY, pp. 549-573.
Chen, H.T. and Chen, W. (2015), “Couldn’t or wouldn’t? the
influence of privacy concerns and self-efficacy in privacy
management on privacy protection”,Cyberpsychology,
Behavior, and Social Networking, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 13-19.
Chen, Y.-R., Cheng, Y., Hung-Baesecke, C.-J.F. and Jin, Y.
(2019), “Engaging international publics via mobile-
enhanced CSR (mCSR): a cross-national study on
stakeholder reactions to corporate disaster relief efforts”,
American Behavioral Scientist, pp. 1-21.
Cheng, Y., Liang, J.W. and Leung, L. (2015), “Social network
service use on mobile devices: an examination of
gratifications, civic attitudes and civic engagement in China”,
New Media & Society, Vol. 17 No. 7, pp. 1096-1116.
Cheng, Y., Jin, Y., Hung-Baesecke, C.-J.F. and Chen, Y.R.
(2018), “Mobile corporate social responsibility (mCSR):
examining publics’responses to CSR-based initiatives in
natural disasters”,International Journal of Strategic
Communication, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 76-90.
Compeau, D. and Higgins, C. (1999), “Social cognitive theory
and individual reactions to computing technology: a
longitudinal study”,MIS Quarterly, Vol. 23 No. 2,
pp. 145-158.
Drennan, J., Bianchi, C., Cacho-Elizondo, S., Louriero, S.,
Guibert, N. and Proud, W. (2015), “Examining the role of
wine brand love on brand loyalty: a multi-country
comparison”,International Journal of Hospitality
Management, Vol. 49, pp. 47-55.
Eastin, M. and LaRose, R. (2000), “Internet self-efficacy and
the psychology of the digital divide”,Journal of Computer-
Mediated Communication, Vol. 6 No. 1.
Engel, P. (2017), “These are the most and least trusted news
outlets in america”, available at: www.businessinsider.com/
most-and-least-trusted-news-outlets-in-america-2017-3
(accessed 15 November 2018).
Evon, D. (2016), “Were dasani products recalled due to a
‘clear parasite?”, available at: www.snopes.com/fact-check/
dasani-recalled-clear-parasite/ (accessed 15 April 2019).
Field, A. (2018), “PR and the problem of truth decay: it’sa
matter of trust”, available at: https://instituteforpr.org/pr-
and-the-problem-of-truth-decay-its-a-matter-of-trust/ (accessed
15 April 2019).
Friestad,M.andWright,P.(1994),“The persuasion knowledge
model: how people cope with persuasion attempts”,Journal of
Consumer Research,Vol.21No.1,pp.1-31.
Golovacheva, K. (2016), “When consumers activate persuasion
knowledge: review of antecedents and consequences”, available
at: https://dspace.spbu.ru/bitstream/11701/6440/1/5_WP%
202016%20Golovacheva.pdf (accessed 15 November 2018).
Ham, C.D., Nelson, M.R. and Das, S. (2015), “How to
measure persuasion knowledge”,International Journal of
Advertising, Vol. 34 No.1, pp. 17-53.
Herr, P.M., Kardes, F.R. and Kim, J. (1991), “Effects of word-
of-mouth and product-attribute information on persuasion:
an accessibility-diagnosticity perspective”,Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 454-462.
Hibbert, S., Smith, A., Davies, A. and Ireland, F. (2007),
“Guilt appeals: persuasion knowledge and charitable giving”,
Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 8, pp. 723-742.
Hobbs, R. (2005), “The state of media literacy education”,
Journal of Communication, Vol. 55, pp. 865-871.
Hobbs, R. (2006), “The seven great debates in the media literacy
movement”,Journal of Communication, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 16-32.
Jang, S. and Kim, J.K. (2018), “Third person effects of fake
news: fake news regulation and media literacyinterventions”,
Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 80, pp. 295-302.
Kahle, L. and Gurel-Atay, E. (2015), Communicating
Sustainability for the Green Economy, Routledge, New York,
NY.
Kang, H., Bae, K., Zhang, S. and Sundar, S.S. (2011), “Source
cues in online news: is the proximate source more powerful
than distal sources?”,Journalism & Mass Communication
Quarterly, Vol. 88 No. 4, pp. 719-736.
Karjaluoto, H., Munnukka, J. and Kiuru, K. (2016), “Brand
love and positive word of mouth: the moderating effects of
experience and price”,Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 25 No. 6,pp. 527-537.
Consumer response to fake news about brands on social media
Zifei Fay Chen and Yang Cheng
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Kirmani, A. and Zhu, R. (2007), “Vigilant against
manipulation: the effect of regulatory focus on the use of
persuasion knowledge”,Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 688-701.
Klar, Y. (1990), “Linking structures and sensitivity to
judgment-relevant information in statistical and logical
reasoning tasks”,Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Vol. 59 No. 5, pp. 841-858.
Ladd, J.M. (2010), “The role of media distrust in partisan
voting”,Political Behavior, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 567-585.
Lazer, D.M., Baum, M.A., Benkler, Y., Berinsky, A.J.,
Greenhill, K.M., Menczer, F., Metzger, M.J., Nyhan, B.,
Pennycook, G., Rothschild, D. and Schudson, M. (2018),
“The science of fake news”,Science (New York, NY),
Vol. 359 No. 6380, pp. 1094-1096.
Lee, N.M. (2018), “Fake news, phishing, and fraud: a call for
research on digital media literacy education beyond the
classroom”,Communication Education, Vol. 67 No. 4,
pp. 460-466.
Lokot, T. and Diakopoulos, N. (2016), “News bots:
automating news and information dissemination on twitter”,
Digital Journalism, Vol. 4 No. 6, pp. 682-699.
Lunardo, R. and Mbengue, A. (2013), “When atmospherics
lead to inferences of manipulative intent: its effects on trust
and attitude”,JournalofBusinessResearch, Vol. 66 No. 7,
pp. 823-830.
Masterman, L. (1985), Teaching the Media, Comedia/
Routlede, London.
Matzler, K., Grabner-Kräuter, S. and Bidmon, S. (2008),
“Risk aversion and brand loyalty: the mediating role of brand
trust and brand affect”,Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 17 No. 3,pp. 54-162.
Miniard, P.W., Sirdeshmukh, D. and Innis, D.E. (1992),
“Peripheral persuasion and brand choice”,Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 226-239.
Nelson, R.M., Wood, M. and Paek, H.-J. (2009),
“Increased persuasion knowledge of video news releases:
audience beliefs about news and support for source
disclosure”,Journal of Mass Media Ethics, Vol. 24 No. 4,
pp. 220-237.
Pham, M.T. and Muthukrishnan, A.V. (2002), “Search and
alignment in judgment revision: implications for brand
positioning”,Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 39 No. 1,
pp. 18-30.
Pullig, C., Netemeyer, R.G. and Biswas, A. (2006), “Attitude
basis, certainty, and challenge alignment: a case of negative
brand publicity”,Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 528-542.
Reber, B.H., Meng, J., Berger, B.K., Gower, K. and Zerfass, A.
(2018), “North american communication monitor 2018”,
available at: http://plankcenter.ua.edu/wp-content/uploads/
2018/10/NACM-2018-Tracking-Trends.pdf (accessed 29
November 2018).
Reinartz, W., Haenlein, M. and Henseler, J. (2009), “An
empirical comparison of the efficacy of covariance-based and
variance-based SEM”,International Journal of Research in
Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 332-344.
Rossiter, J.R. (1977), “Reliability of a short test measuring
children’s attitudes towards TV commercials”,Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 179-184.
Shen, H. (2017), “Refining organization-public relationship
quality measurement in student and employee samples”,
Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, Vol. 94 No. 4,
pp. 994-1010.
Silverman, C. (2016), “Here are 50 of the biggest fake news hits
on facebook from 2016”, available at: www.buzzfeed.com/
craigsilverman/top-fakenews-of-2016 (accessed 15 November
2018).
Skard, S. and Thorbjørnsen, H. (2014), “Is publicity always
better than advertising? The role of brand reputation in
communicating corporate social responsibility”,Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 124No. 1, pp. 149-160.
Speed, E. and Mannion, R. (2017), “The rise of post-truth
populism in pluralist liberal democracies: challenges for
health policy”,International Journal of Health Policy and
Management, Vol. 6 No. 5, pp.249-251.
Sundar, S.S. and Marathe, S.S. (2010), “Personalization
versus customization: the importance of agency, privacy, and
power usage”,Human Communication Research, Vol. 36
No. 3, pp. 298-322.
Tandoc, E.C., Lim, Z.W. and Ling, R. (2018), “Defining ‘fake
news:’a typology of scholarly definitions”,Digital Journalism,
Vol. 5 No. 7, pp. 1-17.
Turcotte, J., York, C., Irving, J., Scholl, R.M. and Pingree, R.J.
(2015), “News recommendations from social media opinion
leaders: effects on media trust and information seeking”,
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Vol. 20 No. 5,
pp. 520-535.
Vargo, C.J., Guo, L. and Amazeen, M.A. (2017), “The
agenda-setting power of fake news: a big data analysis of the
online media landscape from 2014 to 2016”,New Media &
Society, pp. 2028-2049.
Visentin, M., Pizzi, G. and Pichierri, M. (2019), “Fake news,
real problems for brands: the impact of content truthfulness
and source credibility on consumers’behavioral intentions
toward the advertised brands”,Journal of Interactive
Marketing, Vol. 45, pp. 99-112.
Wasko, M.M. and Faraj, S. (2005), “Why should I share?
examining social capital and knowledge contribution in
electronic networks of practice”,MIS Quarterly,Vol.29
No. 1, pp. 35-57.
Wei, M.L., Fischer, E. and Main, K.J. (2008), “An examination
of the effects of activating persuasion knowledge on consumer
response to brands engaging in covert marketing”,Journal of
Public Policy & Marketing,Vol.27No.1,pp.34-44.
Wei, R., Lo, V. and Lu, H. (2010), “The third-person effect of
tainted food product recall news: examining the role of
credibility, attention, and elaboration for college students in
Taiwan”,Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly,
Vol. 87, pp. 598-614.
Westhuizen, L.-M. V D. (2018), “Brand loyalty: exploring
self-brand connection and brand experience”,Journal of
Product & Brand Management, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 172-184.
Williams, A.E. (2012), “Trust or bust? questioning the
relationship between media trust and news attention”,Journal
of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 116-131.
Wrench, J.S., Thomas-Maddox, C., Richmond, V.P. and
McCroskey, J.C. (2013), Quantitative Research Methods for
Communication: A Hands-on Approach, Oxford University
Press, New York, NY.
Consumer response to fake news about brands on social media
Zifei Fay Chen and Yang Cheng
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Appendix. Text from the Facebook post regarding
Coca-Cola’s recall of Dasani water
Below please find the text in the Facebook post regarding
Coca-Cola’s recall of Dasani water. Please note that the text
was kept at its original format, including the typos and
punctuation.
Text in the Facebook post: This brand is on recall and also
dasani water from coke cola company thousands of bottles of
water all over the ( ) has clear parasites from contaminated
water. There’s a website for emergency recalls that you can
have emailed any bad foods or products.
Text in the Facebook post being shared: Bought this water at
Walmart yesterday while in Washington...opened it to give water
to dogs and it turned into a gelatin substance...WTH is this?????
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
About the authors
Zifei Fay Chen, PhD, University of Miami, USA is an
Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication
Studies at the University of San Francisco, USA. Her research
focuses on social media, corporate social responsibility, crisis
communication, and consumer psychology. Zifei Fay Chen is
the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
faychenzifei@gmail.com
Yang Cheng, PhD, University of Missouri, USA is an Assistant
Professor in the Department of Communication at North
Carolina State University, USA. Her research interests include
corporate artificial intelligence, relationship management, crisis
communication, and health communication.
Consumer response to fake news about brands on social media
Zifei Fay Chen and Yang Cheng
Journal of Product & Brand Management
