Peer to Peer lending: The relationship between language features, trustworthiness, and persuasion success

Journal of Applied Communication Research

Volumn 39, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 19-37

  Larrimore, Laura ^a   Jiang, Li ^b   Larrimore, Jeff ^b   Markowitz, David ^b   Gorski, Scott ^b  

^a ITHACA COLLEGE   (United States)

^b Department of Obstetrics Gynecology   (United States)

Author keywords

Language; Liwc; Online; Peer to peer lending; Persuasion

Indexed keywords

EID: 79251510854     PISSN: 00909882     EISSN: 14795752     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00909882.2010.536844     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Berger, C.R., & Calabrese, R.J. (1975). Some exploration in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of communication. Human Communication Research, 1(2), 99-112.
2. Bos, N., Olson, J.S., Gergle, D., Olson, G.M., & Wright, Z.(2002). Effects of four computer-mediated communications channels on trust development. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 135-140. Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
3. Burgoon, M. (1995). Language expectancy theory: Elaboration, explication, and extension. In C.R. Berger & M. Burgoon (Eds.), Communication and social influence processes (pp. 29-52). East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press.
4. Burgoon, M., Denning, P.V., & Roberts, L. (2002). Language expectancy theory. In J.P. Dillard & M. Pfau (Eds.), The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice (pp. 117-137). London: Sage Publications.
5. Burgoon, M., & Miller, G.R. (1985). An expectancy interpretation of language and persuasion. In H. Giles & R.N. St. Clair (Eds.), Recent advances in language communication and social psychology (pp. 199-229). London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
6. Burgoon, M., & Stewart, D. (1975). Empirical investigations of language intensity: The effects of sex of source, receiver, and language intensity on attitude change. Human Communication Research, 1(3), 244-248.
7. Cialdini, R.B. (1993). Influence: The psychology of persuasion (revised ed.). New York: Quill.
8. Doest, L., Semin, G.R., & Sherman, S.J. (2002). Linguistic context and social perception: Does stimulus abstraction moderate processing style? Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 21, 195-229.
9. Flanagin, A.J. (2007). Commercial markets as communication markets: Uncertainty reduction through mediated information exchange in online auctions. New Media & Society, 9(3), 401-423.
10. Freidman, B., Kahn, P., & Howe, D. (2000). Trust online. Communications of the ACM, 43(12), 34-40.
11. Frier, S.(2009, June 30). Peer-to-peer lending is flourishing amid the credit crisis. acremento Bee, p.6b.
12. Gartner, Inc. (2010). Gartner says 50 per cent of banks will still lack an innovation programme and budget by 2013. Retrieved from http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1272313.
13. Hancock, J.T. (2007). Digital deception: Why, when and how people lie online. In K. McKenna, T. Postmes, U. Reips, & A. Joinson (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Internet Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
14. Herzenstein, M., Andrews, R., Dholakia, U.M., & and Lyandres, E. (2008). The democratization ofpersonal consumer loans? Determinants of success in online peer-to-peer lending communities. [Unpublished working paper]. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract-1147856
15. Kupp, M., & Anderson, J. (2007). Zopa: Web 2.0 meets retail banking. Business Strategy Review, 18(3), 11-17.
16. Langer, E.J., Blank, A., & Chanowitz, B. (1978). The mindlessness of ostensibly thoughtful action: The role of "placebic" information in interpersonal interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(6), 635-642.
17. Mogul, M. (2007, July). Look for a higher return? Consider lending to a peer. Kiplinger Business Forecasts, 8. http://www.kiplinger.com/businessresource/forecast/archive/consider_lending_ to_a_peer_070709.html.
18. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press.
19. Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory: Retrospect and current status. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 45, 255-287.
20. Park, D., Lee, J., & Han, I. (2007). The effect of online consumer reviews on consumer purchasing intention: The moderating role of involvement. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 11(4), 125-148.
21. Pennebaker, J.W., Booth, R.J., & Francis, M.E. (2007). Linguistic inquiry and word count (LIWC2007): A computer-based text analysis program. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
22. Pennebaker, J.W., & King, L.A. (1999). Linguistic styles: Language use as an individual difference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6, 1296-1312.
23. Pennebaker, J.W., Mehl, M.R., & Niederhoffer, K. (2003). Psychological aspects of natural language use: Our words, our selves. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 547-577.
24. Petty, R.E., & Cacioppo, J.T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag.
25. Pope, D.G., & Sydnor, J.R. (in press). What's in a picture? Evidence of discrimination from prosper.com. Journal of Human Resources.
26. Prosper.com. (2008).Prosper releases market survey results for September 2008.Retrieved from http://www.prosper.com/about/media_press_releases.aspx?t_Prosper_Releases_Market _Survey_Results_for_September_2008
27. Quinn, J. (2008, August 27). Financing is as close as the nearest angel. Retrieved from http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid_20601039&sid_a7LI2Jh3XdHM
28. Ravina, E. (2008). Love and loans: The effect of beauty and personal characteristics in credit markets. [Unpublished working paper]. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract-1101647
29. Schwanenflugel, P., & Stowe, R.W.(1989). Context availability and the processing of abstract and concrete words in sentences. Reading Research Quarterly, 114-126.
30. Seifert, L.S. (1997). Activating representations in permanent memory: Different benefits for pictures and words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 23, 1106-1121.
31. Semin, G. (2008). Language puzzles: A prospective retrospective on the Linguistic Category Model. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 27(2), 197-209.
32. Semin, G., & Fiedler, K. (1988). The cognitive functions of linguistic categories in describing persons: Social cognition and language. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 558-568.
33. Tan, K.W.P., Swee, D., Lim, C., Detenber, B.H., & Alsagoff, L. (2007). The impact of language variety and expertise on perceptions of online political discussions. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), article 5. Retrieved from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/tan.html
34. Tidwell, L.C., & Walther, J.B. (2002). Computer-mediated communication effects on disclosure, impressions, and interpersonal evaluations: Getting to know one another a bit at a time. Human Communication Research, 28(3), 317.
35. Toma, C., & Hancock, J.T. (in press). What lies beneath: the linguistic traces of deception in online dating profiles. Journal of Communication.
36. Walther, J.B., & Bazarova, N.N. (2007). Misattribution in virtual groups: The effects of member distribution on self-serving bias and partner blame. Human Communication Research, 33(1), 1-26.
37. Yang, S.H., Hung, W.C., Sung, K., & Farn, C.K. (2006). Investigating initial trust towards e-tailers from the elaboration likelihood model perspective. Psychology & Marketing, 23(5), 429-445.