An Acceptance Analysis of Firms’ Posts on Sina Weibo to Build Credibility

Chenghui Wu Peking University

Abstract

This study uses an online questionnaire survey to investigate Chinese social media users’ acceptance of firm-generated credibility-building posts (FGCPs) on Sina Weibo. The findings show that heuristic cues related to content (i.e., topics regarding competence, benevolence, and integrity) and source (i.e., firm nationality and industry types) along with the moderating role of topic, account, and platform familiarity cues significantly influence users’ acceptance level of such posts. After incorporating the insights gained from participants’ responses to open-ended questions in the questionnaire, this study concludes with practical recommendations for crafting effective FGCPs on social media platforms like Sina Weibo.

Journal
Journal of Business and Technical Communication
Published
2026-04-01
DOI
10.1177/10506519251404893
Open Access
Closed
Topics

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (0)

No articles in this index cite this work.

Cites in this index (4)

  1. Journal of Business and Technical Communication
  2. Journal of Business and Technical Communication
  3. Journal of Business and Technical Communication
  4. Journal of Business and Technical Communication
Also cites 49 works outside this index ↓
  1. 10.1086/651566
  2. 10.1109/access.2018.2886314
  3. 10.1177/1077699015606057
  4. 10.1162/qss_a_00151
  5. 10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.09.006
  6. 10.1016/j.chb.2007.01.017
  7. 10.1177/2329490616663708
  8. 10.1007/s11301-023-00378-w
  9. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.07.015
  10. 10.1177/0957926518770264
  11. 10.1016/S0305-0483(00)00021-9
  12. 10.1016/j.omega.2004.01.006
  13. 10.1177/01492063211006450
  14. 10.1108/JEIM-03-2019-0079
  15. 10.1007/s10551-010-0363-y
  16. 10.1016/j.ipm.2017.04.003
  17. 10.1504/IJIMA.2020.106043
  18. 10.1177/002224299305700101
  19. 10.1007/s10551-011-0886-x
  20. 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02833.x
  21. 10.1111/jcc4.12093
  22. 10.1057/s41599-023-02512-1
  23. 10.1177/0893318917707592
  24. 10.1002/asi.22743
  25. 10.1016/j.chb.2013.01.036
  26. 10.1177/23294884211020491
  27. 10.1002/asi.20672
  28. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.07.012
  29. 10.2307/1252308
  30. 10.1016/S0148-2963(99)00104-6
  31. 10.1002/cb.238
  32. 10.1007/978-3-658-38862-1
  33. 10.1207/s15516709cog0000_20
  34. 10.1057/crr.2010.12
  35. 10.1177/14648849231194485
  36. 10.1016/j.jretai.2019.11.009
  37. 10.1177/002224378702400304
  38. 10.2307/1884852
  39. 10.1016/j.pragma.2022.04.011
  40. 10.1109/Tpc.2023.3260465
  41. 10.1140/epjds/s13688-024-00450-9
  42. 10.1177/0093650214565915
  43. 10.4018/JDM.2019100101
  44. 10.1007/978-3-319-77794-8
  45. 10.18564/jasss.2496
  46. 10.1109/Tpc.2023.3284775
  47. 10.1177/23294884251367392
  48. 10.1016/j.jsis.2015.10.004
  49. 10.1108/JBIM-07-2018-0211
CrossRef global citation count: 0 View in citation network →