Ethics Research 1

THEORY AND REVIEW
PRODUCT-RELATED DECEPTION IN E-COMMERCE: A THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE1

Bo Xiao
Department of Computer Science (Computing and Information Systems), Faculty of Science, Hong Kong Baptist University, Kowloon, Hong Kong, CHINA {sophie.xiao@gmail.com}
Izak Benbasat
Sauder School of Business, University of British Columbia, 2053 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z2, CANADA {izak.benbasat@sauder.ubc.ca}
With the advent of e-commerce, the potential of new Internet technologies to mislead or deceive consumers has increased considerably. This paper extends prior classifications of deception and presents a typology of product-related deceptive information practices that illustrates the various ways in which online merchants can deceive consumers via e-commerce product websites. The typology can be readily used as educational material to promote consumer awareness of deception in e-commerce and as input to establish benchmarks for good business practices for online companies. In addition, the paper develops an integrative model and a set of theory-based propositions addressing why consumers are deceived by the various types of deceptive information practices and what factors contribute to consumer success (or failure) in detecting such deceptions. The model not only enhances our conceptual understanding of the phenomenon of product-based deception and its outcomes in e-commerce but also serves as a foundation for further theoretical and empirical investigations. Moreover, a better understanding of the factors contributing to or inhibiting deception detection can also help government agencies and consumer organizations design more effective solutions to fight online deception. Keywords: Product-based information practices, electronic commerce, typology, stimulusorganismresponse framework, model of deception detection
Introduction1
The rapid growth of electronic commerce (e-commerce) has created fertile ground for online fraud and deception (Federal Trade Commission 2001; Grazioli and Jarvenpaa 2000). The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), as well as consumer protection agencies, such as the National Consumers League (NCL), have all voiced
M. Lynne Markus was the accepting senior editor for this paper. Choon Ling Sia served as the associate editor.
concerns over Internet consumer fraud and have initiated specialized programs targeted at detecting and prosecuting such practices (Grazioli and Jarvenpaa 2003b). According to the annual report released by the Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3)a partnership between the FBI, the National White Collar Crime Center (NW3C), and the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA)in 2008, the IC3 received a total of 275,284 complaints from consumers claiming to have been defrauded online, which represents a 33.1 percent increase over the previous year; the total dollar loss linked to online fraud was U.S. $265 million, about $25 million more than in 2007; and the average individual loss amounted to $931 (Internet Crime Complaint Center 2008). In addition to finan-
MIS Quarterly Vol. 35 No. 1 pp. 169-195/March 2011
169
Xiao & Benbasat/Product-Related Deception in E-Commerce
cial damage, victims of Internet deception often suffer from the psychological damage of being victimized, the loss of time for filing complaints and refund requests, and the loss of private information (Grazioli and Jarvenpaa 2000). The increases in online fraud can also adversely affect honest online businesses. When consumers are reluctant to make purchases online for fear of deception, online businesses as a whole suffer from loss in sales and reputation. Consumer deception is clearly an important concern for e-commerce. Prior studies in offline and online deception (Boyle 2003; Davies and Parasuraman 1982; Gilovich 1991; Johnson et al. 1993; Johnson et al. 2001; Klein et al. 1997) have focused on investigating factors contributing to individuals detection (or nondetection) of another partys deliberate attempts to deceive. However, they have not investigated the rather obvious question of why individuals may actually be deceived by deliberately deceptive practices. In a world where deceptive practices are perpetrated via telephone, in print, on radio, or on TV, deception theorists may not have asked this question because of the commonly held assumption that people are deceived because they do not pick up the nonverbal behavioral cues leaked that can serve as telltale signs of deception (i.e., changes in deceivers behaviorsuch as pupil dilation, higher vocal pitch, fidgeting, blinkingas a result of the physiological arousal, emotional reactions, cognitive effort, and attempted control associated with deception) (Ekman and Friesen 1969; Zuckerman et al. 1981, 1986). Media richness theory (Daft and Lengel 1986) and social presence theory (Short et al. 1976), which are often used as the theoretical foundations for empirically examining deception detection across different media, suggest that people should be more accurate in detecting deception in richer media (e.g., face-to-face) where more nonverbal cues are available for judgment. For instance, Short et al. (1976) found that people are more responsive to fraud attempts via phone than via face-to-face communication because the lack of visual cues in the phone medium makes people more vulnerable to strategic manipulation. However, with the advent of e-commerce, the potential of new Internet technologies to mislead or deceive consumers is considerable. As noted by Heckman and Wobbrock (2000), every new technology applicable to commerce (e.g., telegraph, telephone, radio, or television) helps the unscrupulous to swindle the unwary. E-commerce is no exception. Although many deceptive information practices in e-commerce settings are variations of well-known deception types already used in the traditional physical shopping contextsuch as the misrepresentation of merchants, products, and return/refund policiesthe advent of e-commerce has not only made
deception more likely and the perpetration of deceptive acts easier, but has also introduced new avenues for deception (Grazioli and Jarvenpaa 2001, 2003a). First, the unique characteristics of the Internet, such as digital environment, low entry barriers, spatial/temporal separation, and anonymity, have made it a fertile ground for deception. The Internet is a digital environment, which lowers the effort for online companies to create and change information content as well as to manipulate the presentation and production of such information content in order to achieve deception. For instance, web pages can be constructed to attract/distract attention, encourage/discourage cross-comparisons, force choices, and create pressure to buy immediately (Aditya 2001). The Internet also lowers the resources needed to set up a genuine-looking online storefront, thus making the merchants identity easy to falsify and difficult to authenticate. In addition, the physical distance between the web merchant and its customers, as well as the temporal separation of payment and product delivery, makes it harder for customers to verify the truthfulness of the website or its claims. Moreover, since anonymity provides people with a low threat setting, it may breed disinhibited antisocial behavior (Suler 2004, 2005), including deception. Second, the various innovative technologies supporting e-commerce have also given rise to novel forms of deceptive practices. Prior research (e.g., Benassi 1999; Glover and Benbasat 2006; Grazioli and Jarvenpaa 2000) has revealed a number of information technology (IT) mechanisms that can be used by online companies to increase consumers trust in e-commerce websites and/or mitigate their risk perceptions associated with online shopping. However, as illustrated in Appendix A, both trust-building mechanisms and riskreducing tools can be exploited by dishonest companies to deceive consumers (Grazioli 2004; Grazioli and Jarvenpaa 2000). For instance, an online company may design a product recommendation agent (PRA) that provides biased product recommendations to serve the interests of the company. It may provide a virtual product experience (VPE) (Jiang and Benbasat 2005, 2007a) that does not represent consumers real experiences with a product (Bloom et al. 1994). It may also employ multimedia technologies (e.g., Flash, animations) to excite consumers in a manner similar to what fast-talking salespersons can do in physical shopping settings, thus leading consumers to make impulse purchases they may regret later (Bloom et al. 1994). In electronic marketplaces such as eBay, a seller can collude with a group of buyers in order to receive unfairly high ratings, thus allowing that seller to receive more orders from buyers and at a higher price than deserved (Dellarocas 2000).
170
MIS Quarterly Vol. 35 No. 1/March 2011
Concerned with the identity crisis in the IS research community, Benbasat and Zmud (2003) urged IS researchers to pay close attention to the information technology artifact and to incorporate it in IS theories and design recommendations. In the case of e-commerce, there is significant potential for IT (i.e., the Internet and the technologies supporting e-commerce) to contribute to consumer deception. This paper makes the following contributions to research and practice: It extends prior classifications of deception and presents a typology of product-related deceptive information practices that illustrates the various ways online merchants can deceive consumers via e-commerce product websites. The typology can be readily used as educational material to promote consumer awareness of deception in e-commerce and as input to establish benchmarks for good business practices for online companies. It develops an integrative model and a set of theory-based propositions addressing why consumers are deceived by the various types of deceptive information practices and what factors contribute to consumer success (or failure) in detecting deceptions. It enhances our conceptual understanding of the phenomenon of product-based deception and its outcomes in e-commerce and serves as a foundation for further theoretical and empirical investigation. Moreover, a better understanding of factors contributing to or inhibiting deception detection can also help government agencies and consumer organizations design more effective solutions to fight online deception.
be deceived by deceptive practices embodied in websites, and then go on to define the constructs that make up the model. Next, we present propositions concerning the relationships among the constructs. In the final section, we discuss contributions to research and practice and suggest directions for future work.
A Typology of Product-Related Deceptive Information Practices in E-Commerce

Deceptive practices revealed in prior research include: (1) insufficient information disclosure of refund policies, warranty information, and cancellation terms; (2) contract default; (3) product-related deceptive information practices, such as product misrepresentation; (4) nondelivery or late delivery of product; and (5) misuse of personal and financial information (Pavlou and Gefen 2005; Singsangob 2005). To obtain an understanding of deceptive information practices in e-commerce, we first identified the definitions of deception suggested by psychologists and communication researchers. They include A communicators deliberate attempt to foster in others a belief or understanding which the communicator considers to be untrue (DePaulo and DePaulo 1989, p. 1553). Message distortion resulting from deliberate falsification or omission of information by a communicator with the intent of stimulating in another, or others, a belief that the communicator himself or herself does not believe (Miller 1983, p. 92). The deliberate attempt, whether successful or not, to conceal, fabricate, and/or manipulate in any other way factual and/or emotional information, by verbal and/or nonverbal means, in order to create or maintain in another or in others a belief that the communicator himself or herself considers false (Masip et al. 2004, p. 148).
This paper focuses on product-related deceptive information practices. A 1999 survey by Indiana University and the professional service organization KPMG revealed that product information is the most important concern for online customers over the age of 25 (Williams and Larson 2000). The importance of product information to consumers has motivated online merchants to perform deceptive manipulations on such information so as to influence consumers judgment and decision making in e-commerce settings. According to Pavlou and Gefen (2005), product misrepresentation is one of the most common forms of Internet fraud reported. The NCL has also consistently ranked product misrepresentation among the top two Internet scams (e.g., NCLs Fraud Center 2007). Many consumers enjoy the convenience and low prices offered by online shopping, yet these benefits may be countermanded by the increased risk associated with the products purchased online. In the next section, we present a typology of product-related deception information practices in e-commerce. Following that, we introduce the conceptual model of why consumers ay
Three characteristics of deception appear to be consistent across the above definitions. 1. Deception is an intentional or deliberate act. The element of intentionality is what distinguishes deception (i.e., intentional distortion of messages) from misinformation (i.e., unintentional distortion of messages) (Masip et al. 2004, p. 148).
171
2.
Deception is accomplished by manipulating information in some way. Deception has an instrumental end goalthat is, to create or maintain a belief in another that the communicator herself believes to be false.
Since the dimension of these three different deception techniques is the main contribution of this paper, in the remainder of this section, we will discuss each in greater detail.2 It should be noted many similarities exist between deception in e-commerce product websites and deception in contexts (e.g., advertising, personal selling, close relationship, employment), particularly in advertising. While an exact demarcation between honest advertising and deceptive advertising is often difficult to make, we consider a piece of advertising deceptive when it employs any of the deceptive manipulations specified in our 3 3 typology of deceptive information practices in order to mislead the consumer acting reasonably in the circumstances, to the consumers detriment (Ford and Calfee 1986, p. 86).
3.
In accordance with these characteristics, this paper defines product-related e-commerce deceptive information practices as the deliberate manipulation of product-related information perpetrated by online merchants to mislead consumers in order to induce desired attitudinal and behavioral changes in consumerschanges that are detrimental to consumers and beneficial to the merchants. Prior research has suggested many different ways of classifying deception. Summarizing the multitude of previous categorizations of deception, Buller, Burgoon, and their colleagues (Buller et al. 1994; Burgoon et al. 1994) distinguished among three relatively distinct types of deception: (1) concealmentto withhold, omit, or disguise relevant information; (2) equivocationto present information vaguely and/or ambiguously; and (3) falsificationto present false or exaggerated information. Extending Buller and Burgoons concealmentequivocationfalsification classification, which is generic enough to be applied to different deception cases, we include a new dimension detailing the specific operational-level deception techniques in which the three types of deception are carried out in the e-commerce context. This results in a 3 3 typology of deceptive information practices that describes how deception works within e-commerce. The typology has two dimensions: one representing the three deception types already examined in prior deception research and the other representing the following three specific implementation techniques: 1. The manipulation of information content, which refers to the direct alteration of the content of product information provided at an e-commerce website. The manipulation of information presentation, which refers to the manipulation of the design of how product information is presented to consumers at an e-commerce website. The manipulation of information generation, which refers to the manipulation of the dynamic production of product information at an e-commerce website, based on consumer interests, needs, and/or preferences obtained explicitly or implicitly.
Manipulations Performed on Information Content

Prior studies in interpersonal deception have focused predominantly on the nonverbal cues accompanying deception, such as pitches and tones, body gestures, and facial expressions, rather than on the deceptive messages communicated by the deceivers (Buller and Burgoon 1996). Research investigating deceptive messages has primarily examined manipulations that can be performed on the content rather than the presentation of these messages. For instance, McCornack (1992) and Buller and Burgoon (1996) propose that individuals can manipulate the content of information simultaneously along several different dimensions such as completeness, clarity, and veridicality, which correspond to the three deception types concealment, equivocation, and falsification, respectively. For product-related information provided at an e-commerce website, content can be concealed, equivocated, and/or falsified by online companies. For instance, an online company can withhold negative information (e.g., a known safety problem) about a product (i.e., concealment); provide vague information about the total cost (e.g., selling price, tax, shipping and handling fee) of a product (i.e., equivocation); give ambiguous information concerning product return and refund policies (i.e., equivocation); automatically filter out negative consumer reviews (i.e., concealment); pose as con2 While we will focus on personalized information (i.e., information tailored to the specific needs of the individual customer) when discussing the manipulation of information generation, our discussion of information presentation and information content manipulation will center on nonpersonalized information.
2.
3.
172
sumers to write positive reviews about products and services received from the company (i.e., falsification); or even sell a nonexistent product (i.e., falsification). In sum, by altering the availability and quality of information, online companies can manipulate the content of product information at an e-commerce website so as to enhance consumers evaluation of those particular products.
of an online product demonstration to mislead consumers about a particular product feature; for example, it may demonstrate a shorter delay between shots of a digital camera (i.e., falsification). Second, by manipulating the level of vividness of a presentationthat is, the extent to which the presentation is emotionally interesting, imagery provoking, and inherently appealing (Sundar and Kalyanaraman 2004)deceptive online companies can direct consumers attention toward irrelevant information, distract their attention from relevant information, and shape their overall attitude toward and judgment of certain products. For instance, an online company may choose a text-only presentation for a product with desirable functionalities but unappealing appearance (i.e., concealment). The same company may use flashy animations as a decoy to distract consumers from processing non-vivid yet more useful and informative textual descriptions (i.e., concealment). In addition to attracting consumers attention, the sensory stimuli supplied by a vivid presentation may also trigger intense emotional responses (e.g., pleasure and arousal) that can overwhelm consumers self-observation during online shopping, leading to unregulated buying behavior (e.g., impulse buy) (LaRose 2001). Finally, a common deceptive practice utilized by online companies is to present conflicting information via different media. For instance, a digital camera retailer may state truthfully in the textual description that the interchangeable lens of a single lens reflex (SLR) camera is not included in the package; however, it may display an image of the camera with lens attached, with no annotation to indicate that the lens is not included (i.e., concealment and equivocation). Since information conveyed in images is given greater weight in consumer judgment than that conveyed in text, particularly when the two types of information are in conflict (Argyle et al. 1971; Bone and France 2001), consumers are likely to be misled into believing that the lens featured in the image is actually part of the package and may potentially make a purchase decision to their own detriment.
Manipulations Performed on Information Presentation

In addition to the direct alteration of the content of product information, deceptive manipulations can also be performed on the presentation of product information at an e-commerce website. Kleinmuntz and Schkade (1993) note that the presentation of information can be designed to encourage effective decision making. In the same vein, the design of information presentation and delivery can be manipulated to lead to biased decision making. Since the number of potential ways for presentation and delivery of certain information content is vast, we focus on two important characteristics that apply to a broad range of contexts: presentation media and information organization.
Presentation Media Deceptive manipulations can be performed on the presentation of product information at an e-commerce website via the manipulation of presentation media. Information content can be presented using a variety of media in the e-commerce context, such as text, graphics, audio, video, and animations, so that users can make better sense of the information available (Lim and Benbasat 2000). Heller and Martin (1995) have categorized four different types of presentation media with increasing complexity: text, graphics, sound, and motion. We add to this classification a new media type, virtual experience (e.g., virtual reality), which involves active consumer interaction with the media (Jiang and Benbasat 2005, 2007a, 2007b). Online companies can manipulate presentation media in three ways to achieve their deceptive ends. First, an online company can alter the individual features of a medium to either inhibit correct product understanding or foster incorrect product understanding; for instance, an online company may use images (still images or videos) of small size and low fidelity to present a product that has some exterior problems (i.e., concealment). It can also manipulate the response rate
Information Organization The manipulation of information presentation can also be achieved via the manipulation of information organization. Information content in an e-commerce website can be organized meaningfully into groups (Jarvenpaa 1989; Kleinmuntz and Schkade 1993), hierarchies, and/or sequences (Kleinmuntz and Schkade 1993). Information organization provides a cognitive incentive system for decision makers by
173
influencing the effort and accuracy associated with information processing strategies and, therefore, inducing the use of different strategies (Kleinmuntz and Schkade 1993). Unscrupulous online companies can manipulate the way information is organized in their web pages to encourage or discourage the use of certain information processing strategies by consumers. For instance, to encourage consumers to compare different products based on a certain attribute (e.g., the only attribute on which the promoted products have advantage over other products), online companies may provide the functionality to sort by that attribute alone (i.e., concealment). Likewise, since information at a deep level of navigation requires more effort to access (Chau et al. 2000), online companies can hide negative product information and consumer reviews such that consumers have to traverse many levels of navigation to locate such information (i.e., concealment). The sequence in which information appears may influence consumers judgment as to the relevance and/or importance of the individual pieces of information (Kleinmuntz and Schkade 1993; Schkade and Kleinmuntz 1994), particularly when consumers hold certain expectations as to the order of information presentation; for instance, when they expect that products are arranged in order of decreasing popularity. Deceptive online companies can thus influence consumers decision making by manipulating the sequence of presented information in accordance with their expectations. For example, online companies may present a promoted product at the top of their bestselling list in order to increase the chance that consumers will choose that particular product (i.e., falsification). In summary, the manipulation of information presentation can be achieved in two ways. First, by a combination of the different means of manipulating presentation media, online companies can influence consumers product understanding and attention as well as emotional responses conducive to deception. Second, by manipulating the way product information is organized at an e-commerce website, deceptive online merchants can influence consumers information processing strategies as well as the accessibility and the perceived relevance of information.
technology supporting dynamic production of information include search engines, product catalogs, and online product recommendation agents (PRAs). Our discussion of the manipulation of information generation focuses on PRAs because they are likely to be the first technological artifacts with which a consumer interacts at an e-commerce website that has a vast number of products or choices. PRAs are software artifacts that take as input individual consumers product-related interests or preferences, obtained either explicitly or implicitly, and subsequently provide recommendations for products that match the consumers expressed interests or preferences (Xiao and Benbasat 2007). Appropriately designed PRAs can enable consumers to make informed purchase decisions by reducing their information overload and search complexity, while improving their decision quality. However, the degree to which PRAs actually empower consumers depends upon the veracity and objectivity of the PRAs (Hill et al. 1996; King and Hill 1994). Users of automated decision aids have been found to place undue trust in such technologies, leading to the abusive use of such systems and biased decision-making processes, particularly when the competence of the systems far exceeds that of their users (e.g., Mosier et al. 1998; Skitka et al. 1999). Two classes of errors that often emerge in highly automated decision-making environments are omission errors (which occur when people fail to respond to system irregularities/ events because the automated decision aid fails to detect or indicate them) and commission errors (which occur when people incorrectly follow the directive or recommendation of the automated decision aid, despite contraindications from other sources of information) (Mosier et al. 1998; Skitka et al. 1999). Likewise, consumers (particularly those with little experience in the intended product category) may over-rely on the PRAs to make decisions for them, rather than using the PRAs as one component of a thorough monitoring and decision-making process (Skitka et al. 2000). Moreover, people have a tendency to trust experts or specialists. Just as we trust advice from human experts rather than that offered by nonexpert friends and relatives, we also trust IT artifacts that claim specialty. People who lack expertise in the subject matter are likely to perceive a technology labeled as specialist (e.g., PRAs acting as online sales advisors) to be credible (Reeves and Nass 1996; Tseng and Fogg 1999). Unscrupulous online companies can prey upon consumers double vulnerabilities, that is, their trust in automation and trust in specialist, by designing deceptive PRAs that provide recommendations biased toward their own interest. For instance, a PRA can focus consumers attention only on criteria on which the promoted products have a distinctive
Manipulations Performed on Information Generation

The third type of deceptive manipulation is performed on information generation, which refers to the dynamic production of product-related information at an e-commerce website, based on consumer interests, needs, and/or preferences obtained explicitly or implicitly. Examples of e-commerce
174
competitive advantage (Wagner et al. 2001) (i.e., concealment); provide false decision guidance to influence consumers decision criteria (i.e., falsification); give priority to promoted products by manipulating the underlying algorithm for generating recommendations (Aksoy and Bloom 2001) (i.e., falsification); mix promoted products (which do not go through the PRAs filtering process) with those that actually fit consumers preferences in an unordered set of recommendations (i.e., equivocation); exclude products that best fit consumers preferences from its recommendation list (i.e., concealment); and provide value or overly general explanations on how the recommendations are generated (i.e., equivocation). There have already been some reported incidents of companies generating false recommendations to consumers. For instance, Amazon.com has admitted to using faux recommendations to drive business to its new clothing store partners. The false recommendations were positioned right next to the legitimate recommendations for books, music, and other items that were generated based on customers purchase histories (Wingfield and Pereira 2002). In summary, by manipulating how personalized information is generated at an e-commerce website (e.g., through product recommendations), online merchants can influence consumers product evaluation and subsequently their decision making.
commerce. Drawing primarily from the stimulusorganism response framework in environmental psychology (Mehrabian and Russell 1974) and the model of deception detection (Johnson et al. 1993; Johnson et al. 2001), our model theorizes (1) how the various types of deceptive information practices exploiting IT capabilities (based on the typology that we developed and presented in the previous section) contribute to consumer deception, and (2) what factors contribute to the success (or failure) of consumer deception detection at an e-commerce website embodying deceptive information practices. The stimulusorganismresponse framework posits that the various stimuli within a shopping environment together affect a consumers cognitive and/or affective processes (organism), which in turn determine the consumers behavioral responses, expressed as either an approach behavior or an avoidance behavior. Whereas stimuli are cues external to the customer that rouse or incite him consciously or subconsciously into action (Belk 1975), organism refers to the intervening internal processes (e.g., the perceptual, feeling, and thinking activities) between the stimuli and the reaction of the consumer (Bagozzi 1986). The concept of approachavoidance is defined in a broad sense to include physical movement toward, or away from, an environment or stimulusdegree of attention, exploration, favorable attitudes such as verbally or nonverbally expressed preference or liking, [and] approach to a task (Mehrabian and Russell 1974, p. 96). Approach behaviors are positive attitudes/actions toward a product/ brand, service, or shopping environment (such as staying in the store, purchasing products, or returning to the store), while avoidance behaviors are the opposite (Parboteeah 2005). The stimulusorganismresponse framework has been extensively elucidated (Bagozzi 1986) and widely adopted in past research, with promising results, to model the impact of environmental stimuli on consumer responses in both offline and online shopping contexts (e.g., Baker et al. 1994; Eroglu et al. 2001; Fiore and Kim 2007; Sherman et al. 1997). In an e-commerce context, the various types of deception tactics can be deliberately employed by online merchants to create the stimuli that can activate consumers internal cognitive/ affective processes, which, in turn, promote an approach behavior toward the e-commerce website. As such, the stimulusorganismresponse framework serves as an appropriate overarching framework for our theoretical model. Johnson and his colleagues (Johnson et al. 1993; Johnson et al. 2001) developed a model of deception detection that describes four subprocesses by which individuals, based on their domain knowledge and the available information cues, determine whether information provided by a sender is deceptive (Grazioli 2004):
Summary
In this section, we have proposed a two-dimensional typology of deceptive information practices in e-commerce. The three major types of deceptionconcealment, equivocation, and falsificationexamined in prior deception research comprise one dimension, while the other dimension consists of the three operational-level deception techniquesthe manipulation of information content, the manipulation of information presentation, and the manipulation of information generationin the e-commerce context, with the latter dimension being our focus of discussion. Please see Table 1 for examples of deceptive information practices in e-commerce based on our new typology.
A Theory of Product-Related Deceptive Information Practices in E-Commerce

In the previous section, we presented a 3 3 framework of the various ways by which online merchants can exploit the capabilities of IT to deceive consumers with e-commerce websites. In this section, we present our theoretical model of product-related deceptive information practices in e-
175
Table 1. Examples of Product-Related Deceptive Information Practices in B2C E-Commerce

Manifestations of Deception Types Deception Types Manipulation of Info Content The website withholds negative information (e.g., a known safety problem) about a product. Concealment The website automatically filters out negative consumer reviews. Manipulation of Info Presentation (Media and Organization) The websites use flashy animations as a decoy, that is, to distract consumers from processing non-vivid yet more useful and informative textual descriptions ( Presentation media). To encourage consumers to compare different products on a certain attribute (e.g., the only attribute on which the promoted products have advantage over other products), the website provides the functionality to sort by that attribute alone ( Information organization) The website shows conflicting information about what is included in the package with different media. For instance, while displaying a vivid image of an SLR camera with lens attached (with no annotation to indicate that the lens is not included), the website states (truthfully) in the textual description that the lens of the camera is sold separately ( Presentation media). The website manipulates the response rate of an online product demonstration to mislead consumers about a particular product feature (e.g., demonstrate a shorter delay between shots of a digital camera) ( Presentation media). The website presents promoted products at the top of its bestselling list ( Information organization). Manipulation of Info Generation The PRA focuses consumers attention only on criteria on which the promoted products have a distinctive competitive advantage. The PRA excludes products that best fit consumers preferences from the recommendation list.
Equivocation
The website provides vague information about the total cost (e.g., selling price, tax, shipping and handling fee) of a product. The website gives ambiguous information concerning product return and refund. The website sells a nonexistent product. Staff of the online company pose as prior consumers and write positive reviews about products and services received from the company.
The PRA presents an unordered set of recommendations, mixing promoted products (which do not go through the PRAs filtering process) with those that actually fit consumers preferences. The PRA provides vague or overly general explanations as to how the recommendations are generated. The PRA gives priority to promoted products by manipulating the underlying algorithm for generating recommendations. The PRA provides false decisional guidance (i.e., guidance as to how to choose a certain product) to influence consumers decision criteria.
Falsification
1.
The activation subprocess consists of allocating attention to cues, based on the presence of discrepancies between what is observed and what is expected. The hypothesis generation subprocess is where individuals generate interpretive hypotheses to explain the anomalies detected during the activation process. The hypothesis evaluation subprocess is where previously generated deception hypotheses are evaluated (by comparison with some criterion) to determine their acceptability.
4.
The global assessment subprocess consists of combining the accepted hypotheses into one synthetic assessment of deceptiveness.
2.
3.
According to Johnson and his colleagues, individuals are deceived because they cannot detect deception due to their inability to identify anomalies/inconsistencies in their interactional environment, generate deception hypotheses to explain the detected anomalies/inconsistencies, evaluate already generated deception hypotheses, or arrive at an appropriate global assessment of the other partys deceptiveness.
176
There is some empirical work in applying the model of deception detection in the online shopping context. Integrating the process-oriented model of deception detection (Johnson et al. 1993; Johnson et al. 2001) with the broader deception, trust, and risk model of Internet consumer behavior developed by Grazioli and his colleagues (Grazioli 2004; Grazioli and Jarvenpaa 2000; Grazioli and Wang 2001) empirically investigated the determinants of deception detection success by comparing the information processing behavior of successful and unsuccessful detectors during the four processes of activation, hypothesis generation, hypothesis evaluation, and global assessment. They found that peoples competence at evaluating the hypothesis of deception was a strong differentiator between successful and unsuccessful detectors. In addition, successful and unsuccessful detectors relied on different types of cues when evaluating the deception hypothesis. Whereas successful detectors relied on assurance cues (e.g., third-party seals, warranties, news clips, and physical location of the online store) and discounted trust cues (e.g., seller reputation, customer testimonials, and seller size), unsuccessful detectors did the opposite. In a similar vein, researchers in psychological contract breach3 in organizational settings (Morrison and Robinson 1997; Robinson 1996; Robinson and Morrison 2000) have specified a two-stage model for detecting psychological contract breach, in which individuals perceive psychological contract breach before attributing it to either purposeful reneging, reneging due to inability, or misunderstanding. In this model, the hypothesis generation and hypothesis evaluation subprocesses of the model of deception detection are combined into a single stage and the global assessment subprocess is omitted. Informed by the model of deception detection and in line with the more parsimonious model for detecting psychological contract breach, our model focuses on two sequential subprocesses of individuals deception detection process, namely, the noticing of anomaly and the attribution of anomaly. Individuals competence in noticing anomalies and in making proper attributions of such anomalies will likely help them perform better in deception detection.
In the remainder of this section, we will introduce our theoretical model and define the constructs in the model. Then, we will present propositions concerning the relationships among the constructs in the model.
Theoretical Model
Our theoretical model is presented in Figure 1. As shown in Figure 1, the key constructs of the model (from right to left) are consumers approach behavior toward target product(s); consumers perception of website deceptiveness; affective mechanisms; cognitive mechanisms; use of deceptive information practices at e-commerce website; individual, product, and situational characteristics; and deception detection support mechanisms. In the remainder of this section, whenever we mention the terms anomaly, deception, and deceptiveness, we refer specifically to product-related anomaly, deception, and deceptiveness. Adopting the definition of approach behavior from Mehrabian and Russell (1974), we define approach behavior toward target product(s) as the positive attitude or action toward the target product(s) (i.e., the product offering(s) on which deceptive information practices have been performed). It is the potential outcome, or the instrumental end goal, of deceptive information practices. An approach behavior toward target product(s) is exhibited when A consumer generates an attitude toward the target product(s), an attitude that she would not otherwise have generated in the absence of the deceptive information practices performed by the online merchants, or A consumer makes a purchase of the target product(s) that she would not otherwise have made in the absence of the deceptive information practices performed by online merchants, a purchase that may be to the detriment of the consumer.
A consumer is deceived when she exhibits an approach behavior toward the target product(s). Perceived product-related deceptiveness in e-commerce website is the extent to which a consumer believes that an e-commerce website is deceptive in the content, presentation, and generation of product-related information. It indicates the consumers awareness of the online merchants intent to deceive. Perceived deceptiveness is triggered by a negativevalenced violation of consumers preconceived expectations,
Research in psychological contract breach is closely related to deception research in that deception can be considered as purposeful reneging of psychological contract whereas incompetence can be considered as reneging due to inability.
177
STIMULUS Use of Deceptive Information Practices at E-Commerce Website Types of Deception Concealment Equivocation Falsification Types of Deception Techniques Manipulation of information content Manipulation of information presentation Manipulation of information generation
ORGANISM Affective Mechanisms Pleasure

P4, P6
RESPONSE
Arousal
P7
P1b
Dominance
P3b
Approach Behavior Toward Target Product(s)
Cognitive Mechanisms
P4-5
Perceived Product Value

P8-11
P1a P3a
P18-19 P25-26
Deception Detection Process Noticing of ProductRelated Anomaly at E-Commerce Website Perceived Product-Related Deceptiveness in E-Commerce Website
P2
Individual, Product, and Situational Characteristics
P13-17 P20-24
Deception Detection Support Mechanisms
P27-28
Attribution of Product Related Anomaly Noticed at E-Commerce Website
P12
Causal link Process arrow
Figure 1. A Theoretical Model of Product-Related Deceptive Information Practices in E-Commerce
often as a result of the deceptive information practices performed by online merchants, or the recognition of cues suggesting deceptive information practices. It is the outcome of the consumers deception detection process. Cognitive/affective mechanisms refer to the cognitive and/or affective mediating processes through which deceptive information practices influence consumer behavior. Cognitive mechanisms consist of beliefs, thoughts, or perceptions about products, brands, and e-commerce websites, formed either through direct interaction with product offerings or through the processing of secondary source information. This model includes one cognitive mechanism promoting approach behaviornamely, perceived product value, referring to a consumers overall assessment of the utility of a product based on an assessment of what is received and what is given (e.g., the trade-off between quality and price) (Sweeney and Soutar 2001; Zeithaml 1988). Various deceptive information practices are employed to either enhance consumers positive assessment or reduce/mitigate their negative assessment of the value of the target product(s).
The model also includes a cognitive mechanism potentially leading to an avoidance behavior (i.e., a negative attitude/ action)namely, deception detection process at an e-commerce website. Websites that manipulate productrelated information with deceptive information practices often exhibit anomalies that violate consumers preconceived expectations, thus triggering a two-step deception detection process: the noticing of product-related anomalies in the e-commerce website, followed by the attribution of productrelated anomalies noticed in the e-commerce website. The deception detection process may result in consumers belief that the e-commerce website is deceptive and subsequently lead to an avoidance behavior on the part of the consumers. Affective mechanisms refer to emotional reactions activated by the stimuli in the shopping environment. This paper examines two such emotional reactions: pleasure and arousal. Whereas pleasure refers to a subjective feeling state in which a person feels good, joyful, or happy about the target product(s), arousal is a subjective feeling state in which a person feels excited, stimulated, alert, or active about the target product(s).
178
Deceptive information practices are sometimes performed to induce pleasure and arousal in a consumer, which in turn may result in an approach behavior on the part of the consumer. Dominance was originally conceptualized as a third emotional reaction to environmental stimuli (Mehrabian and Russell 1974), defined as the extent to which a person feels in control of or free to act in a situation. However, Russell and Pratt (1980) proposed a modification of the Mehrabian Russell theory that deletes the dominance dimension. They argued that dominance required a cognitive interpretation by the person and is therefore not purely applicable in situations calling for affective responses. Moreover, prior empirical studies have found the dominance factor to be of little predictive value (Donovan and Rossiter 1982; Russell and Pratt 1980). Hence, although dominance is included in our theoretical model for the reason of completeness, we will not state any propositions related to this factor. Use of deceptive information practices at e-commerce website refers to the application of one or more types of deceptive manipulations at an e-commerce website, based on our newly developed typology of product-related deceptive information practices presented in the previous section. Individual, product, and situational characteristics refer to the individual, product, and situational factors that moderate whether or not the use of deceptive information practices succeeds in deceiving customers. The individual factors explored in this paper include consumers motivation (i.e., involvement with product and involvement with purchase decision), experience with online/offline shopping in general, product expertise, prior interaction(s) with the e-commerce website, prior trust toward the e-commerce website, truth bias (i.e., the predisposition to assume that others communication is truthful) (Carlson et al. 2004), and the receipt of third-party information about the e-commerce website. The productrelated factor is product type (i.e., whether the product is a search product that can be assessed based on the values attached to its attributes or an experience product characterized by attributes that need to be experienced prior to purchase). The situational factors include types of consumer purchase (i.e., whether the purchase is a planned one that occurs when consumers have a specific purchase in mind or an impulse purchase made with no pre-shopping intentions) (Beatty and Ferrell 1998; Moe 2003), task complexity, and consultation of alternative resources (i.e., whether alternative information resources, such as another website, are consulted by consumers during online shopping). Deception detection support mechanisms refer to support mechanisms (IT-based or non-IT-based) that can help consumers carry out the processes of deception detection,
namely, noticing or identifying anomalies (resulting from deceptive information practices) in the e-commerce website and attributing such anomalies to deception by online merchants. Next, we present propositions concerning the relationships among the constructs in the theoretical model.
Propositions
Effects of Deceptive Information Practices
In this section, we theorize about the positive (i.e., pleasure, arousal, and perceived product value) and negative antecedents (i.e., perceived deceptiveness of the e-commerce website) of consumers approach behavior toward target product(s). We also examine the effects of deceptive information practices on these antecedents and the moderating effects of situational (i.e., type of consumer purchases and task complexity) and product (i.e., product type) characteristics. In accordance with the stimulus-organism-response model, the environmental cues in e-commerce websites that embody various deceptive information practices (as delineated in the typology of e-commerce deceptive information practices) create the stimuli that invoke different cognitive/affective mechanisms by consumers. The cognitive mechanism examined in this paper is consumers perceived product value. When consumers perceive higher value associated with a particular product offered at an e-commerce website as a result of the deceptive manipulation performed on productrelated information, they will be more likely to exhibit positive attitude/action toward this product (an approach behavior) compared to when deception does not exist. Similarly, heightened pleasure and arousal (the two affective processes examined in this paper) triggered by sensory stimuli created by deceptive information practices undermine consumers self-control (LaRose 2001) and reduce their cognitive attention (Cenfetelli 2006), thus leading to positive attitude/ action toward the productan approach behaviorwithout active information processing (Forgas 1995). It is thus proposed that P1a: Perceived value of a target product is positively associated with the likelihood that consumers will exhibit approach behavior toward the target product. Affective reactions (i.e., pleasure and arousal) toward a target product are positively associated
P1b:
179
with the likelihood that consumers will exhibit approach behavior toward target product(s). However, deceptive information practices will not succeed in inducing desired consumer responses if consumers, during their interaction with the e-commerce website, are able to perceive the online merchants intent to deceive and thus make appropriate and adequate corrections. When productrelated anomalies in the e-commerce website are noticed by consumers and subsequently attributed to deception by online merchants, an approach behavior toward the target product(s) is less likely to take place, even when consumers have enhanced perception of the value of and/or heightened affective reaction (i.e., pleasure and arousal) toward the target product (effected by deception). It is thus proposed that P2: Perceived product-related deceptiveness in e-commerce websites is negatively associated with the likelihood that consumers will exhibit approach behavior toward target product(s). P3: The effect of perceived product value (P3a) as well as that of pleasure and arousal (P3b) on consumers approach behavior toward target product(s) will be attenuated when consumers perceive product-related deceptiveness in an e-commerce website. Individuals often lack the requisite cognitive resources to form well-defined preferences that are stable over time and invariant to the context in which decisions are made (Bettman et al. 1998). Instead, they tend to construct their preferences on the spot when they must make a choice (Bettman et al. 1998; Payne et al. 1992). Since these preferences are constructed, rather than absolute, they are sensitive to the characteristics of the decision environment. E-commerce deceptive information practices are performed to influence consumer preference construction, potentially to their detriment. All three types of deception techniquesmanipulation of information content, manipulation of information presentation, and manipulation of information generationwork by enhancing consumers perception of the value associated with target products and/or triggering feelings of pleasure and arousal toward those products. However, each type exerts a differential effect on consumers cognitive/affective processes. The manipulation of information content operates directly on the content of product information and is thus expected to exert greater influence on consumers cognitive evaluation of the value of a product. The same is true with the manipulation of information generation, which influences the relative attractiveness of a particular product offering via biased product recommendations. The manipulation of
information presentation, however, often achieves deception by activating affective (i.e., pleasure and arousal) processes that may accentuate the perceived value associated with particular product offerings. For instance, online companies can use vivid presentations to trigger intense emotional responses in consumers that can overwhelm their selfobservation during online shopping, potentially to their detriment. It is thus proposed that P4: Websites that exhibit deceptive information practices are more likely to enhance consumers perceived value associated with a target product and trigger strong feelings of pleasure and arousal in consumers toward a target product. P5: Websites that employ the manipulation of information content or information generation are more likely to enhance consumers perceived value associated with a target product than websites that employ the manipulation of information presentation. P6: Websites that employ the manipulation of information presentation are more likely to trigger strong feelings of pleasure and arousal in consumers toward a target product than websites that employ the manipulation of information content or the manipulation of information generation. Type of Purchase Situation as Moderator The type of purchase situation interacts with different deceptive information practices to influence consumers purchase decision making. Prior research has dichotomized consumer purchase into planned purchase and impulse purchase (e.g., Beatty and Ferrell 1998; Rook and Fisher 1995). A planned purchase occurs when consumers have a specific purchase in mind (Moe 2003), whereas an impulse purchase is a sudden and immediate purchase with no pre-shopping intentions (Beatty and Ferrell 1998). Research in impulse purchase has shown that sensory stimuli in a retail environment may make consumers less attentive to their purchasing behavior by generating a sense of pleasure and arousal about the product that overwhelms their self-control (LaRose 2001). Shopping environments can be carefully crafted to facilitate impulse purchases by undermining consumers self-control mechanisms (LaRose 2001). Moreover, positive emotions triggered by sensory stimuli in the shopping environment may be relied upon by consumers as a heuristic and thus lead to behavior without active information processing (Forgas 1995). Positive emotions signal that the environment is favorable and, therefore, little cognitive attention is required
180
(Cenfetelli 2006). Insomuch as the manipulation of information presentation exploits media characteristics that emphasize attractive product stimuli (e.g., enlarged photos, animations, and interactive graphics), such tactics may trigger feelings of pleasure and arousal in consumers, which can reduce their self-control and information processing, thus leading to impulse purchases (LaRose 2001). In contrast, the instrumental nature of the planned purchase suggests that consumers are likely to engage in focused, deliberate, thoughtful search and evaluation during the shopping process. They will scrutinize the content of product information and assess the merit of the products, thus attending less to peripheral cues (e.g., image vividness, relative position in a list of recommendation by PRAs) (Petty and Cacioppo 1986). Since the manipulation of information content operates directly on the content of product information, it is expected to exert greater influence on a consumers cognitive evaluation of the value of a product than the manipulations of information presentation or information generation. It is thus proposed that P7: For impulse purchases, websites that employ the manipulation of information presentation are more likely to trigger strong feelings of pleasure and arousal in consumers toward a target product than websites that employ the manipulation of information content or the manipulation of information generation. P8: For planned purchases, websites that employ the manipulation of information content are more likely to enhance consumers perceived value associated with a target product than websites that employ the manipulation of information presentation or the manipulation of information generation. Product Type as Moderator Product type can also influence a consumers vulnerability to deception at an e-commerce website. Products are generally categorized into search products and experience products. Whereas search products (e.g., cameras, calculators, or books) are characterized by attributes (e.g., color, size, price, and components) that can be assessed based on the values attached to them without necessitating the need to experience them directly, experience products (e.g., movie, music, clothing, or cosmetics) are characterized by attributes (e.g., taste, smell, softness, and fit) that need to be experienced prior to purchase. Because of the inherent difficulty associated with the evaluation of experience products prior to purchasing online, consumers tend to feel uncertain as to whether the products would meet their expectations (Spieker-
mann 2001). When faced with difficulties in making choices, consumers may resort to heuristics, resulting in decision biases (Bettman et al. 1998; Payne et al. 1993). Thus, the manipulation of information presentation and the manipulation information generation, which increase the visual salience as well as the perceived relevance/importance of the target products, will likely exert greater effect on consumers cognitive evaluation of experience products than on their evaluation of search products. In addition, King and Balasubramanian (1994) found that product type had a significant impact on consumers reliance on a particular decision-making process. Consumers evaluating a search product were more likely to use own-based decision-making processes (i.e., to rely on themselves for product search, evaluation, and purchase); in contrast, those evaluating an experience product tended to use other-based decision-making processes (i.e., to subcontract either part or all of their decision-making process). Since prior research has shown that consumers who relied on others for decision making are likely to make purchasing decisions in keeping with salespersons recommendations (Formisano et al. 1982), Xiao and Benbasat (2007) conclude that consumers evaluating experience products are more likely to rely on salespersons assistance and adopt their recommendations. As the role of product recommendation agents in online shopping is similar to that of salespersons in a traditional shopping environment, consumers shopping for experience products are likely to be influenced by the recommendations provided by PRAs and thus render themselves vulnerable to the manipulation of information generation performed by online merchants via the design of biased PRAs. We thus propose P9: When the target product is an experience product, websites that employ manipulation of information generation are more likely to enhance consumers perceived value associated with the target product than those employing manipulation of information presentation or manipulation of information content. Task Complexity as Moderator An additional situational characteristic that moderates the link from deceptive information practice to the affective and cognitive mechanisms is task complexity, typically determined by the number of attributes on which each alternative is compared (Jacoby 1977). As consumers tend to evaluate products on several dimensions (e.g., attributes or features) before making a choice, the greater the number of alternatives (or dimensions), the more complex the decision task will be
181
due to the increasing volume of relevant information that customers must assess. When task complexity is low, consumers are able to evaluate all the relevant information in detail prior to making their final choice. Under such circumstances, the manipulation of information contentwhich alters the content of product information to make the target products more attractivewill likely exert greater influence on consumers assessment of product value. In contrast, when task complexity is high, due to the limitations in information processing capacity, it is not feasible for consumers to evaluate all relevant product information to determine the value of each alternative. Instead, consumers are likely to attend to and be influenced by peripheral cues in their decision-making process (Petty and Cacioppo 1986). For instance, consumers may choose a target product simply because it is presented at the top of a websites bestselling list or is recommended as the best-fitting product by a PRA at the website, without processing available information thoroughly or searching for additional information. As such, the manipulations of information presentation and information generationwhich increase the visual salience and the perceived relevance/ importance of the target productswill have greater effect on consumers assessment of the value of the target products and hence their purchase decision making when the task complexity is high. It is thus proposed that P10: Websites that employ the manipulation of information content are more likely to enhance consumers perceived value associated with a target product when task complexity is low. Websites that employ the manipulation of information presentation or the manipulation of information generation are more likely to enhance consumers perceived value associated with a target product when task complexity is high.
Consumer Deception Detection

This section examines the effects of deceptive information practices as well as individual (i.e., motivation, experience with online/offline shopping in general, product expertise, prior interaction(s) with the e-commerce website, prior trust toward the e-commerce website, truth bias, and the receiving of third-party information about the e-commerce website), product (i.e., product type), and situational (i.e., type of consumer purchase and consultation of alternative resources) characteristics on the deception detection process and its outcomes (i.e., hits or misses). Signal detection theory (Davies and Parasuraman 1982) differentiates between two classes of eventsnoise (i.e., the background) and signal (i.e., stimulus that deviates from background noise and thus may be detected)and explains the performance of individuals who strive to determine the presence of a signal. Signal detection theory specifies four possible outcomes in error detection tasks: (1) hits, (2) misses, (3) false alarms, and (4) correct rejections. In the context of deception detection, information that is free from manipulation might be considered noise, whereas information that is tampered by manipulation of its content, presentation, and/or generation would provide a signal (Biros 1998). As such, there are also four possible outcomes in a deception detection task, which determine an individuals deception detection performance: 1. A hit occurs when consumers detect deception when it does exist. A miss occurs when consumers fail to detect deception when it does exist. A false alarm occurs when consumers report deception when it does not exist. A correct rejection occurs when consumers do not report deception when it does not exist.
P11:
2. 3. 4.
In summary, while cognitive/affective mechanisms such as perceived product value, pleasure, and arousal contribute positively to consumers approach behavior toward target product(s), perceived deceptiveness of the e-commerce website has a negative impact. Different deception techniques exert differential impacts on the cognitive/affective mechanisms, with the manipulation of information content or manipulation of information generation having greater impact on consumers perceived product value, and the manipulation of information presentation on feelings of pleasure and arousal. Type of consumer purchase, product type, and task complexity also interact with type of deception technique to influence the cognitive/affective mechanisms.
This paper focus on hits and misses as indicators of deception detection success and deception detection failure, respectively, since our theoretic model assumes the existence of deception in the e-commerce website. Hits occur when consumers perceive the e-commerce website to be deceptive; misses occur when consumers perceive the website to be free from deceptive manipulations. Prior research in deception detection (e.g., Johnson et al. 1993; Johnson et al. 2001; Morrison and Robinson 1997; Robinson 1996; Robinson and Morrison 2000) suggests that
182
individuals follow two sequential subprocesses in detecting deception, namely, the noticing of anomaly and the attribution of anomaly. To be successful in detecting deception in an e-commerce website, consumers must be able to (1) notice the anomalies as a result of the deceptive information practices, and (2) attribute the noticed anomaly to deception by online merchants. Thus, we propose P12: Hits are more likely to occur when consumers are able to notice product-related anomalies in the e-commerce website and attribute such anomalies to deception.
services provided by the online company; website functionalities facilitating product search, evaluation, choice, and purchase; or other relevant issues. As discussed above, such expectations may derive from a variety of bases, such as the consumers general experience in shopping online and/or offline, their prior interaction with this particular website, and information about the website from their friends and relatives, all of which help consumers create expectations that serve as criteria against which the behavior of the e-commerce website is evaluated and inconsistencies, if any, are noted. Thus, we propose P13 P15: Consumers who are experienced in online/offline shopping in general (P13), who have had prior interaction(s) with the e-commerce website (P14), and/or who have received third-party information about the e-commerce website (P15) are more likely to generate expectations that enable them to notice product-related anomalies in the e-commerce website (thus resulting in hits).
The extent to which a consumer is able to notice and correctly attribute anomalies (as a result of deceptive information practices) in an e-commerce website is influenced by a variety factors and processes, including the amount and type of deception deployed in the website, the availability of deception detection support mechanisms, and various individual and situational characteristics. In the remainder of this section, we will first examine factors influencing the likelihood of consumers to notice and attribute anomalies resulting from deceptive information practices. We will then explore the effects of deception support mechanisms on deception detection performance. The Noticing of Product-Related Anomaly: Individual Characteristics, Amount/Type of Deception, and Situational Characteristics People hold preexisting expectations regarding the behavior of those with whom they are interacting (Burgoon and Walther 1990). These expectations may stem from social norms (Burgoon et al. 1995; Jones 1986), prior interactions (Burgoon et al. 1995; Honeycutt 1991; Jones 1986), information from a third party (Levine et al. 2000), or stereotypes (Burgoon and Le Poire 1993; Jones 1986). According to the model of deception detection (Johnson et al. 1993; Johnson et al. 2001), an anomaly is an inconsistency between what is observed and what is expected. When an interactants observed behavior sufficiently deviates from what is expected, an expectation violation is said to occur (Levine et al. 2000), raising suspicion, creating doubt, and ultimately leading to judgments of deceptiveness. However, for the occurrence of expectation violation to be noted, people must have situation-relevant expectations regarding an interactants behavior in the first place. For instance, in an online shopping context, consumers may have expectations regarding the selection and prices of products available at the e-commerce website; pre-sale and post-sale
As posited by the signal detection theory, increased attention and effort as a result of increased motivation enable individuals to better distinguish signal from noise in a deception detection task (Boyle 2003; Gilovich 1991; Klein et al. 1997). Similarly, individuals with greater expertise in a task domain are better equipped to detect a wider set of signals from background noise. In an online shopping context, consumers motivation is manifest in their involvement with a particular product category and/or their involvement with a particular purchase decision. Consumers who are highly involved either with a product or with a purchase decision are likely to engage in thorough information search and comprehensive information processing (Clarke and Belk 1978; Zaichkowsky 1985), and thus are more likely to identify deception cues when they are present. Likewise, the more product expertise the consumers possess, the more likely for them to notice anomalies in their interaction with the e-commerce website during the online shopping process (e.g., Biros 1998; Johnson et al. 2001) and to distinguish signals from noise. It is thus proposed P16: Motivated consumers are more likely to notice product-related anomalies in the e-commerce website (thus resulting in hits) than unmotivated consumers. Consumers with a high level of product expertise are more likely to notice product-related anomalies in the e-commerce website (thus resulting in hits) than consumers with a low level of product expertise.
P17:
183
The interactants observed behavior must sufficiently deviate from what is expected in order for the inconsistency to be noticeable. This is in line with the signal detection theory, which states that strong signals are more likely to be detected than weak signals (Davies and Parasuraman 1982). Therefore, in an e-commerce context, the more deceptive information practices are employed by the online merchant, the more likely for consumers to take notice of the anomalous behavior. Also, although empirical research in detection performance associated with different types of deception is scarce, there exists some evidence suggesting the differential detectability of different deception tactics. Burgoon and Buller (1994; see also Burgoon et al. 1996) found that of the three types of deception (i.e., equivocation, concealment, and falsification), equivocation produced the greatest degree of detection accuracy. The vague and indirect nature of equivocal messages makes it more noticeable than the other two types of deception. Fatt (2001) also suggests that those who wish to deceive others should engage in falsification rather than equivocation, since the latter is more likely to result in detection. While Grazioli and Jarvenpaa (2003a) argue that falsification is hard for online consumers to identify because detection requires assessing the content of an offer to transact via the Internet, we believe that the same applies to concealment. It is thus proposed that P18: Consumers are more likely to notice product-related anomalies in an e-commerce website that employs more deceptive information practices than in one that employs fewer. Consumers are more likely to notice product-related anomalies as a result of equivocation than those resulting from falsification or concealment.
Whether a shopper consults alternative information sources during online shopping (a situational factor) also influences the likelihood that he will notice anomalies. Since all three types of deceptive information practices work (albeit to various extent) by influencing the availability and quality of information presented to consumers, when alternative external information resources (e.g., product manufacturers websites, third-party expert review or consumer review websites such as CNET.com and ConsumerReports.org, or independent product recommendation agents, such as those designed by Active Decisions) are available to consumers and when consumers actually make use of such resources to verify the information presented at an e-commerce website, they are more likely to uncover inconsistencies and anomalies in the website. It is thus proposed that P21: When shopping at websites that exhibit deceptive information practices, consumers who consult alternative information sources are more likely to notice product-related anomalies in the e-commerce website (thus resulting in hits) than consumers who do not.
The Attribution of Product-Related Anomaly: Individual Characteristics, Type of Deception, Type of Deception Techniques Individuals frequently try to make sense of the world around them by making attributions about the cause of events/ behaviors (Tomlinson and Mayer 2009), particularly when the events/behaviors are negative in valence. According to causal attribution theory (Weiner 1986), the perception of a negative outcome (that has occurred when the trustor perceives disconfirming evidence regarding her expectations) leads the individual to identify the causes of the outcome. Similarly, the model of deception detection specifies that, upon noticing an anomaly, individuals will often make attributions of the anomaly by generating potential hypotheses to explain it (Johnson et al. 2001; Koonce 1993). Since human behavior is frequently amenable to different interpretations (e.g., Borkenau 1986; Higgins 1989), the same act is quite often considered from multiple perspectives (Wojciszke 2005). As such, several alternatives (e.g., innocent mistakes, incompetence) are often available to explain the observed anomaly, with deception being one of the alternatives. In an e-commerce context, factors such as individual characteristics (e.g., trust and truth bias) as well as type of deception technique influence the likelihood for consumers to attribute the observed anomalies to deception by online merchants.
P19:
The type of purchase situation also influences consumers performance in noticing anomalies. A planned purchase is characterized by focused, deliberate, thoughtful search and evaluation (Moe 2003); in contrast, an impulse purchase occurs after experiencing a compelling urge to buy (Beatty and Ferrell 1998). As noted by Kacen and Lee (2002), the rapidity of an impulse purchase decision precludes thoughtful, deliberate consideration of all information and choice alternatives. This lack of reflection often renders consumers vulnerable to unwanted strategic influences exerted by online merchants via the implementation of various deceptive information practices. It is thus proposed that P20: Product-related anomalies in the e-commerce website are less likely to be noticed by consumers (thus resulting in misses) when they are engaged in impulse purchases than in planned purchase.
184
Robinson (1996) defines trust as ones expectations, assumptions, or beliefs about the likelihood that anothers future actions will be beneficial, favorable, or at least not detrimental to ones interests (p. 576). As a general positive attitude toward another social entity, trust plays a significant role in influencing ones interpretation of social behaviors within a relationship (Robinson 1996). Two types of trust relevant to the e-commerce deception context are prior trust (a kind of knowledge-based trust) and calculative-based trust. Individuals tend to maintain cognitive consistency by interpreting information in ways that reinforce their prior beliefs and attitudes, while avoiding or ignoring interpretation that disconfirms their prior beliefs (Fiske and Taylor 1984); this is referred to as selective interpretation bias in judgment and decision-making literature. In an online shopping context, consumers with high prior trust toward a website (probably resulting from positive prior interaction with the website) will expect the e-commerce website not to behave in a way detrimental to their interests. Therefore, upon noticing an anomaly, they will be less likely to attribute the anomaly to deception and more apt to attribute it to extenuating circumstances (e.g., incompetence, honest oversight) (Robinson 1996). In contrast, consumers with low prior trust toward a website will be more likely to interpret the identified anomalies as cues of deception. This is done to reinforce and maintain their prior theories and hypotheses about the e-commerce website. It is thus proposed that P22: Consumers with a high level of prior trust are less likely to attribute product-related anomalies noticed in the e-commerce website to deception (thus resulting in misses) than consumers with a low level of prior trust.
anomalies noticed in the e-commerce website to deception (thus resulting in misses) than consumers with a low level of calculative-based trust. Prior deception research demonstrates that the inability of humans to detect deception is, to a large extent, due to individuals truth bias, which is the predisposition to assume that others communication is truthful (Carlson et al. 2004). When deception exists, consumers with strong truth bias will be less willing to attribute identified anomalies to deception, and those with weak truth bias will be more willing to make the attribution. The negative effect of truth bias on deception detection has been the focus of much conceptual and empirical work (e.g., Buller and Burgoon 1994; McCornack 1992). Although, truth bias has been found to be stronger among people in close relationships, it also exists in communicative partners who are complete strangers (Tilley 2005). It is thus proposed that P24: Consumers with strong truth bias are less likely to attribute product-related anomalies noticed in the e-commerce website to deception (thus resulting in misses) than consumers with weak truth bias.
The extent to which consumers are capable of correctly attributing anomalies observed in a deceptive website is also influenced by the particular type of deception deployed in the website. Of the three types of deception, concealment is the most difficult to attribute to deception even when it is noticed by consumers, insofar as displaying all the information about a product is mission impossible. Even an honest online merchant must pick and choose what information to present to customers. It is therefore proposed that P25: Compared to falsification or equivocation, productrelated anomalies as a result of concealment are less likely to be attributed to deception (thus resulting in misses).
Calculative-based trust is shaped by the rational assessment of the costs and benefits of another party cheating or cooperating in the relationship (Shapiro et al. 1992; Williamson 1993). If the costs of being caught outweigh the benefits of cheating, then trust is warranted, since cheating is not in the best interest of the other party (Akerlof 1970). Calculativebased trust is deterrence-based in that individuals will not engage in opportunistic behavior out of fear of facing the adverse consequences of being untrustworthy (Shapiro et al. 1992). In the online shopping context, consumers with a high level of calculative-based trust will be less likely to attribute anomalies noticed in the e-commerce website to deception, since they believe that the online merchants have more to lose than to gain by cheating (Gefen et al. 2003). We thus propose P23: Consumers with a high level of calculative-based trust are less likely to attribute product-related
To achieve a deceptive purpose (e.g., to induce the purchase of certain promoted target products), online companies can choose among the manipulation of information content, information presentation, and, sometimes, information generation. In contrast to the manipulation of information content (which works primarily by influencing the availability and the quality of information), the manipulations of information presentation and information generation operate by influencing the processability of information and inducing psychological processes (e.g., vividness effect, picture superiority effect, automation bias, expertise bias, trust in benevolence and integrity) relevant to deception (for discussion on the availability and processability of information, see Bettman and Kakkar 1977).
185
As such, deception based on the manipulation of information presentation or information generation may be less likely to arouse consumers suspicion as to the online companys truthfulness even when the consumers feel uncomfortable with the format of information presentation or the output based on information generation. Rather, they may be more inclined to attribute the detected anomalies (e.g., overly flashy presentation, difficult-to-locate information, lack of cross-comparison functionality, unsatisfactory product recommendations) to inadequate technical competence or poor aesthetic design. Moreover, since the mere provision of PRAs may result in reduced risk perceptions and enhanced trust (Glover and Benbasat 2006; Grazioli and Jarvenpaa 2000), deception by manipulating information generation (via PRAs) may be less likely to be attributed to deception than manipulating information presentation. It is thus proposed that P26: Product-related anomalies as a result of manipulation of information content will be more likely to be attributed to deception (thus resulting in hits) than manipulation of information presentation, which, in turn, will be more likely to be attributed to deception (thus resulting in hits) than manipulation of information generation.
the e-commerce context to support consumers in noticing anomalies resulting from deceptive information practices. For instance, an intelligent shopping assistant (similar to the one available at econsumer.gov) can monitor where consumers are in the online transaction process and provide situationspecific checklists to help consumers uncover anomalies. A verification assistant that offers dual browser support enables consumers to compare and contrast product information from different websites, thus helping consumers notice inconsistencies. Since the identification of anomalies in an ecommerce website is an important first step toward successful detection of deception by online companies, these IT-based and non-IT-based mechanisms can help consumers achieve success in deception detection. It is, therefore, proposed that P27: Hits are more likely to occur when consumers are provided with mechanisms that support the noticing of product-related anomalies in the e-commerce website.
Deception Detection Support Mechanisms Most prior studies in deception detection have shown that the human ability to detect deception is a little better than chance (e.g., DePaulo et al. 1985; DePaulo and DePaulo 1989). Since the inability of consumers to differentiate honest online companies from deceptive ones endangers the sustainability of e-commerce, it is important to provide support mechanisms that can help consumers carry out the processes of deception detection. The model of deception detection (Johnson et al. 1993; Johnson et al. 2001) suggests that the noticing of anomalies is a requirement for successful deception detection. Thus, mechanisms that support consumers in identifying cues of deception will likely help them perform better in detecting deception by online companies. Prior research (e.g., DePaulo et al. 1982; Zuckerman et al. 1984) has shown that training in recognizing cues (nonverbal and/or verbal) of deception can provide individuals with the necessary knowledge to discriminate deception from nondeception. While there are mixed results on the effects of training on deception detection, a recent literature review of training effects shows that, overall, training improves deception detection accuracy (Frank and Feeley 2003). In addition to training, IT-based mechanisms (see Appendix B for some examples) can be implemented in
Having noticed the anomalies in their environment, individuals will attempt to attribute them by generating interpretive hypotheses (e.g., deception, innocent mistakes, incompetence). Experiments in auditing suggest that individuals competence at generating the deception hypothesis is an important determinant of success at detecting deception (Johnson et al. 1993; Johnson et al. 2001). Thus, mechanisms that can support consumers anomaly attribution process will likely enhance their deception detection performance. Prior empirical studies in deception detection have examined the effect of warning on individuals deception detection success. Explicit warnings about potential deceptive behaviors can arouse individuals suspicion and induce their sensitivity to deception, thus increasing their likelihood to generate deception hypothesis. The positive effect of warning on deception detection accuracy has received some empirical support. For instance, Biros et al. (2002), George et al. (2004), and Grazioli (2004), showed that suspicious receivers had a better chance to detect deception than unsuspicious ones. In addition to warning, IT-based mechanisms (see Appendix B) can also be implemented to support the attribution of anomalies. For instance, third-party reputation systems or performance history can help consumers evaluate the prior performance of a particular online merchant, thus establishing a basis for anomaly attribution. By supporting consumers attribution of anomalies noticed in the e-commerce website, these IT-based and non-IT-based mechanisms can help consumers achieve success in deception detection. It is, therefore, proposed that P28: Hits are more likely to occur when consumers are provided with mechanisms that support the attribution of product-related anomalies noticed in the e-commerce website.
186
In summary, deception detection success is more likely when consumers are able to notice anomalies (as a result of deceptive information practices) in the e-commerce website and attribute the noticed anomalies to deception. Consumers motivation, experience with online/offline shopping in general, product expertise, prior interaction(s) with the e-commerce website, receiving of third-party information about the e-commerce website, deception types, type of consumer purchases, and consultation of alternative resources influence the likelihood for consumers to notice anomalies in the e-commerce website. On the other hand, prior trust, calculative-based trust, truth bias, and type of deception or deception techniques will influence consumers attribution of anomalies noticed in the website. Both IT-based and non-ITbased support mechanisms can help consumers notice anomalies in their interactional environment and make correct attributions, thus enhancing their performance in detecting deception. In this section, we have presented our theory about why consumers may be deceived by deceptive information practices embodied in e-commerce websites. We propose that the use of various deceptive manipulations exploiting IT capabilities at e-commerce websites creates the environmental stimuli that promote consumers approach behavior toward a target product via the activation of a set of cognitive/affective mechanisms. Consumers are more likely to be deceived when they (1) have an enhanced cognitive assessment of the value of a target product or a strong affective reaction (i.e., pleasure and arousal) toward a target product (effected by deceptive information practices), and (2) do not perceive product-related information in the e-commerce website as deceptive. Factors such as individual characteristics, product characteristics, situational characteristics, amount/type of deception, and deception detection support also influence consumer vulnerability to deception.
Contributions to Research and Practice

This paper advances our knowledge of consumer deception in e-commerce. First, it develops a more comprehensive and finer-grained typology that better captures various types of deceptive information practices that can be perpetrated by online companies against consumers, exploiting technologies supporting e-commerce. The typology includes two dimensions: the three deception types that have been examined in prior deception research (i.e., concealment, equivocation, and falsification) and the three specific deception techniques in the e-commerce setting (i.e., manipulation of information content, manipulation of information presentation, and manipulation of information generation), which are the focus of this paper. In addition to describing the various types of deceptive information practices formed by the two dimensions, the paper also provides examples illustrating how they can be implemented in e-commerce (see Table 1). Second, the paper develops a theoretical model (see Figure 1) that encompasses the key constructs influencing consumer responses to an e-commerce website embodying deceptive product representations. To our knowledge, this is the first model of e-commerce deception that integrates the stimulus organismresponse framework with prior theorizations of consumer deception to explain why consumers are deceived by websites embodying deceptive information practices. It is also the first model that explicitly examines consumer vulnerability to deception performed on different types of products (i.e., search versus experience), under different shopping situations (e.g., planned purchase versus impulse purchase, high task complexity versus low task complexity). Using this theoretical model as a starting point, we have advanced 28 propositions concerning the relationships among its key constructs. By providing a rich account of deception and its outcomes in business-to-consumer (B2C) e-commerce, this paper enhances a conceptual understanding of this phenomenon and serves as a basis for future empirical as well as theoretical work. This paper is also of interest to e-commerce practitioners, consumer protection/advocacy organizations, and government monitoring/regulating agencies. First, the typology of ecommerce deceptive information practices developed in this paper can be used as educational material for promoting consumer awareness of potential deception perpetrated by online companies (e.g., Internet Fraud Tips issued regularly by the National Consumers League). In addition, the typology provides valuable input for government agencies (e.g., Federal Trade Commission in the United States, Office of
Discussion and Conclusions

In this paper, we have developed a typology of deceptive information practices in the e-commerce context and presented a set of theory-based propositions concerning why consumers are deceived by deliberately deceptive practices embodied in e-commerce websites. The paper should be of interest to academic researchers, e-commerce practitioners, consumer protection/advocacy organizations, and government monitoring/regulating agencies. Next, we present the contributions of this paper and identify areas for future research.
187
Consumer Affairs in Canada), industry leaders (e.g., Amazon, Expedia, Dell), and consumer organizations (e.g., National Consumers League in the United States, Consumers Association of Canada) to establish benchmarks for good business practice for online companies. An example of such a benchmark is the Canadian Code of Practice for Consumer Protection in Electronic Commerce. Second, a better understanding of consumer vulnerability to different deceptive information practices in e-commerce as well as individual, product, and situational factors affecting consumers detection of such practices can help government agencies and consumer organizations design situation-specific warning messages and educational materials personalized to different consumers and different shopping situations.
indirect approaches into a common framework and delineate the conditions under which direct and indirect processes emerge. Testing the Theoretical Model The theoretical model presented in Figure 1 represents a set of causal relationships, hence hypotheses that are based on the propositions represented in the model should be tested as such. These would preferably be tested utilizing the laboratory experiment method to facilitate the manipulation of independent variables (particularly the different deceptive information practices) and the control of extraneous factors. Because the issue of deception is a sensitive and potentially harmful one, field experiments are less feasible or not advisable.4 Since the complexity of the theoretical model makes it infeasible to validate the model as a whole, we suggest that the theoretical model be divided into smaller and more manageable parts, allowing different deceptive information practices and individual/situational factors to be tested one small group at a time. For example, propositions P1P6, P9P11, and P16 can be tested as a group to validate the proposed effects of different deception techniques (i.e., manipulation of information content, manipulation of information presentation, and manipulation of information generation), one individual factor (e.g., motivation), one product factor (e.g., product type), and one situational factor (e.g., task complexity) on consumers online purchase behavior. Whereas studies on one period of use are appropriate for validating most of the propositions, a longitudinal approach may be required to test the proposition related to prior interaction(s) with the e-commerce website and prior trust toward the e-commerce website. The majority of the propositions and subpropositions have not yet been tested empirically. Of the few propositions that are supported or partially supported with empirical evidence (P16, P17, P19, P24, P27, and P28), only two (P27 and P28) have been tested in e-commerce settings. In addition, none of the existing studies has implemented the deceptive information practices as discussed in this paper. Therefore, further validation should be conducted in areas where no empirical investigations have been undertaken in an e-commerce context.
Suggestions for Future Research

This paper represents a necessary first step toward a thorough understanding of deception in e-commerce. Further research can be conducted to explore other explanations of consumer deception, to test and expand the theoretical model presented in this paper, to explore anti-deception mechanisms, and to examine other kinds of e-commerce deception. Exploring Alternative Explanations of Consumer Deception A potential alternative explanation of consumer deception that is not examined in this paper is the theory of direct perception, also referred to as the Gibsonian ecological approach to perception (Gibson 1979). In contrast to the constructivist or indirect approach to perception (which entails conscious information processing), direct perception does not require an individual to be active in processing information in order to construct a perception from environmental cues. Instead, a persons perception is immediate and spontaneous (Allard 2001). When applied to the deception research context, the direct perception approach suggests that it is possible that consumers may be influenced by deceptive information practices without being aware of them; that is, they are deceived unconsciously, without any attempt at conscious deception detection. Although our theoretical model is based on indirect perception, we cannot rule out direct perception as a rival explanation of why consumers are deceived by websites embodying deceptive practices, since direct and indirect perception define a continuum rather than a dichotomy (Norman 1983). It is suggested that future research in consumer deception endeavor to incorporate the direct and
4 Field interviews or field observations may be feasible if a deception is found to be happening. However, they still have to be handled with care, given the sensitivity of the issue.
188
In addition to testing the proposed relationships among the variables representing the constructs in the theoretical model, future research can also explore the relationships between the two types of cognitive mechanismsperceived product value and the deception detection processto understand the threshold for successful deception. Moreover, further research is needed to investigate the potential effects of consumer approach behavior toward target product(s) (at time t) on their perceived deceptiveness of the e-commerce websites (at time t+1); that is, whether and under what circumstances consumers who are deceived into purchasing the product(s) promoted by the websites will realize that they have been duped. Expanding the Theoretical Model The proposed theoretical model can be expanded with constructs discussed not only in prior deception studies but also in persuasion and attitude change literature. For instance, future research can explicitly differentiate among different outcomes of deception detection tasks (i.e., hits, misses, correction rejections, and false alarms), based on individuals assessment of the deceptiveness of the e-commerce website and the actual deceptiveness of the website, and investigate the effects of different individual/situational factors on these outcomes. Research is also needed to explore not only the factors affecting online companies decision to deceive or not to deceive but also the antecedents of their choice of particular deceptive information practices. Additionally, future research can investigate the cognitive and affective consequences of detected deception in e-commerce, such as elevated perceived risk of shopping at the website (e.g., Grazioli and Jarvenpaa 2000; Grazioli and Wang 2001), reduced trust toward the website (e.g., Grazioli and Jarvenpaa 2000; Grazioli and Wang 2001; Robinson 1996), intensified feeling of violation (e.g., Robinson 1996), more negative attitude toward the e-commerce website (e.g., Grazioli and Jarvenpaa 2000; Grazioli and Wang 2001), and decreased future intention to shop at the website (e.g., Ajzen and Fishbein 1980; Glover and Benbasat 2006). Moreover, future research can explore the role culture plays in detecting deceptive information practices. A recent study by Sia and colleagues (Sia et al. 2009) reveals that the impact of peer customer endorsements on trust perceptions is stronger for individuals in collectivistic cultures than for those in individualistic cultures. As such, testimonials of peer customers in collectivistic cultures could be potentially exploited for deceptive purposes. Investigating Anti-Deception Mechanisms A comprehensive strategy for reducing e-commerce deception must include consideration of deterrence, prevention, and
detection (Grazioli and Jarvenpaa 2003b; Straub and Welke 1998). Deterrence mechanisms aim to reduce the perpetrators propensity to deceive and the victims propensity to engage in risky behaviors (Grazioli and Jarvenpaa 2003a, 2003b). Perpetrators, when caught, must face certain punishment and severe sanction. Government regulating agencies or independent auditing professionals should conduct unannounced audits of e-commerce websites periodically so as to deter online companies from attempting deception (Wells 2002). Consumer education, also a potent means of deterrence, can alert consumers to the possibility of deception in e-commerce, thus countering the false sense of safety induced by security technology and the promise of credit card companies regarding the limited liability arising from online transactions (Grazioli and Jarvenpaa 2000). Preventive measures are active countermeasures with the capacity to ward off abuse (Grazioli and Jarvenpaa 2003a, 2003b). Although the idea of total control and a purely technical solution to prevent deception is unrealistic (Castelfranchi and Tan 2002), technological solutions such as secure protocols, encryption, and authentication can help prevent certain forms of deception (e.g., illegitimate copycat websites). Detection mechanisms are the consumers last line of defense against perpetrators of deception. The theory of deception detection (Johnson et al. 1993; Johnson et al. 2001) suggests that, to be successful in deception detection, individuals must possess necessary domain knowledge and skills in recognizing deception cues, be sensitive to the possibility of deception (so as to generate deception hypothesis), and have effective means to evaluate the generated deception hypothesis. Therefore, an effective e-commerce deception detection mechanism must be able to support consumers in these respects. In addition to non-IT-based solutions, such as warning consumers about the possibility of deception and training them in recognizing deception cues that have been examined in prior deception studies, there are some IT-based mechanisms (see Appendix 2 for examples) currently in use or promising for future use, which can be implemented in the e-commerce context. These mechanisms may support consumers in recognizing inconsistencies, generating deception hypothesis, and evaluating deception hypothesis, thus enabling them to better detect the deception perpetrated by online companies. Examining Other Kinds of E-commerce Deception This paper limits its scope to product-related deceptive information practices performed by online companies against consumers in a B2C e-commerce context. Future research can be directed to (1) non-product-related deception (e.g.,
189
deception performed on reputation systems); (2) deception performed by consumers against online companies in a B2C e-commerce context; and (3) deception performed by either party of a business-to-business (B2B), consumer-to-business (C2B), or consumer-to-consumer (C2C) transaction. Different deception detection, deterrence, and prevention mechanisms need to be designed and implemented for each type of e-commerce situation. According to Bazerman (2001), consumer research has developed many insights that are more likely to benefit marketers rather than consumers. Bazerman advocates a consumer-focused approach to the study of consumer behavior (which would advance knowledge aimed at helping consumers make wiser consumption decisions), as opposed to a marketing perspective of consumer behavior (which develops knowledge focusing on the determinants of consumer purchasing). In parallel to the marketing-focused approach to consumer behavior, IS research also seems to have been focusing on investigating antecedents to users adoption intention of new technologies, without paying adequate attention to guiding users in making rational adoption decisions or developing in-depth understanding of users adoption decision-making processes. By explicating how IT can contribute to consumer deception and theorizing about why consumers are deceived by e-commerce websites embodying deceptive information practices, this paper contributes to a user-focused approach to IS adoption research.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the senior editor, the associate editor, and the anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback during the review process. This research was supported by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
References
Aditya, R. N. 2001. The Psychology of Deception in Marketing: A Conceptual Framework for Research and Practice, Psychology & Marketing (18:7), 2001, pp. 735-761. Ajzen, I., and Fishbein, M. 1980. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Akerlof, G. A. 1970. The Market for Lemons: Quality, Uncertainty and the Market Mechanisms, Quarterly Journal of Economics (84:3), pp. 488-500. Aksoy, L., and Bloom, P. N. 2001. Impact of Ordered Alternative Lists on Decision Quality: The Role of Perceived Similarity, paper presented at the Society for Consumer Research Winter Conference, Scottsdale, AZ, February 15-17.
Allard, F. 2001. Information Processing in Human Perceptual Motor Performance, Kinesiology 356 Course Notes, University of Waterloo, Canada (from http://ahsmail.uwaterloo.ca/kin356/ illusion/direct.html; acessed May 6, 2008). Argyle, M., Alkema, F., and Gilmour, R. 1971. The Communication of Friendly and Hostile Attitudes by Verbal and Non-Verbal Signals, European Journal of Social Psychology (1:3), pp. 385-402. Bagozzi, R. P. 1986. Principle of Marketing Management, Chicago: SRA. Baker, J., Grewal, D., and Parasuraman, A. 1994. The Influence of Store Environment on Quality Inferences and Store Image, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (22:4), pp. 328-339. Bazerman, M. H. 2001. Consumer Research for Consumers, Journal of Consumer Research (27:4), pp. 499-504. Beatty, S. E., and Ferrell, M. E. 1998. Impulse Buying: Modeling Its Precursors, Journal of Retailing (74: 2), pp. 169-191. Belk, R. 1975. Situational Variables and Consumer Behavior, Journal of Consumer Research (2:3), pp. 157-164. Benassi, P. 1999. TRUSTe: An Online Privacy Seal Program, Communications of the ACM (42:2), pp. 56-59. Benbasat, I., and Zmud, R. W. 2003. The Identity Crisis Within the IS Discipline: Defining and Communicating the Disciplines Core Properties, MIS Quarterly (27:2), pp. 183-194. Bettman, J. R., and Kakkar, P. 1977. Effects of Information Presentation Format on Consumer Information Acquisition Strategies, Journal of Consumer Research (3:4), pp. 233-240. Bettman, J. R., Luce, M. F., and Payne, J. W. 1998. Constructive Consumer Choice Processes, Journal of Consumer Research (25:3), pp. 187-217. Biros, D. P. 1998. The Effects of Truth Bias on Artifact-User Relationships: An Investigation of Factors for Improving Deception Detection in Artifact Produced Information, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL. Biros, D. P., George, J. F., and Zmud, R. W. 2002. Inducing Sensitivity to Deception in Order to Improve Decision Making Performance: A Field Study, MIS Quarterly (26:2), pp. 119-144. Bloom, P. N., Milne, G. R., and Adler, R. 1994. Avoiding Misuse of New Information Technologies: Legal and Societal Considerations, Journal of Marketing (58:1), pp. 98-110. Bone, P. F., and France, K. R. 2001. Package Graphics and Consumer Product Beliefs, Journal of Business and Psychology (15:3), pp. 467-489. Borkenau, P. 1986. Towards an Understanding of Trait Interrelations: Acts as Instances for Several Traits, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (51), pp. 371-381. Boyle, R. J. 2003. Dispersed Deception: An Examination of the Impacts of Computer Mediation, Proximity, and Familiarity on Truth Bias, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL. Buller, D. B., and Burgoon, J. K. 1994. Deception: Strategic and Nonstrategic Communication, in Strategic Interpersonal Communication, J. A. Daly and J. M. Wiemann (eds.), Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 191-223.
190
Buller, D. B., and Burgoon, J. K. 1996. Interpersonal Deception Theory, Communication Theory (6:3), pp. 203-242. Buller, D. B., Burgoon, J. K., White, C. H., and Ebesu, A. S. 1994. Interpersonal Deception: VII. Behavioral Profiles of Falsification, Equivocation, and Concealment, Journal of Language and Social Psychology (13:4), pp. 366-395. Burgoon, J. K., Buller, D. B., Ebesu, A. S., and Rockwell, P. 1994. Interpersonal Deception: V. Accuracy in Deception Detection, Communication Monographs (61:4), pp. 303-325. Burgoon, J. K., Buller, D. B., Guerrero, L. K., Afifi, W. A., and Feldman, C. M. 1996. Interpersonal Deception: XII. Information Management Dimensions Underlying Deceptive and Truthful Messages, Communication Monographs (63:1), pp. 50-69. Burgoon, J. K., and Le Poire, B. A. 1993. Effects of Communication Expectancies, Actual Communication, and Expectancy Disconfirmation on Evaluations of Communicators and Their Communication Behavior, Human Communication Research (20:1), pp. 67-96. Burgoon, J. K., Le Poire, B. A., and Rosenthal, R. 1995. Effects of Preinteraction Expectancies and Target Communication on Perceiver Reciprocity and Compensation in Dyadic Interaction, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology (31:4), pp. 287-321. Burgoon, J. K., and Walther, J. B. 1990. Nonverbal Expectancies and the Evaluative Consequences of Violations, Human Communication Research (17:2), pp. 232-265. Carlson, J. R., George, J. F., Burgoon, J. K., Adkins, M., and White, C. H. 2004. Deception in Computer-Mediated Communication, Group Decision and Negotiation (13:1), pp. 5-28. Castelfranchi, C., and Tan, Y. H. 2002. The Role of Trust and Deception in Virtual Societies, International Journal of Electronic Commerce (6:3), pp. 55-70. Cenfetelli, R. T. 2006. The Role of Emotions in Technology Usage, unpublished working paper, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, 2006. Chau, P. Y. K., Au, G., and Tam, K. Y. 2000. Impact of Information Presentation Modes on Online Shopping: An Empirical Evaluation of a Broadband Interactive Shopping Service, Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce (10:1), pp. 1-22. Clarke, K., and Belk, R. W. 1978. The Effects of Product Involvement and Task Definition on Anticipated Consumer Effort, Advances in Consumer Research (6:1), pp. 313-318. Daft, R. L., and Lengel, R. H. 1986. Organizational Information Requirements, Media Richness, and Structural Design, Management Science (32:5), pp. 554-571. Davies, D. R., and Parasuraman, R. 1982. The Psychology of Vigilance, London: Academic Press. Dellarocas, C. 2000. Mechanisms for Coping with Unfair Ratings and Discriminatory Behavior in Online Reputation Reporting Systems, in Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Information Systems, W. J. Orlikowski, S. Ang, P. Weill, H. C. Krcmar, and J. I. DeGross (eds.), Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, December 10-13, pp. 520-525. DePaulo, B. M., Lassiter, G. D., and Stone, J. I. 1982. Attentional Determinants of Success at Detecting Deception and Truth, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (8:2), pp. 273-279.
DePaulo, B. M., Stone, J. I., and Lassiter, G. D. 1985. Deceiving and Detecting Deceit, in The Self and Social Life, B. R. Schlenker (ed.), McGraw-Hill, New York, pp. 323-370. DePaulo, P. J., and DePaulo, B. M. 1989. Can Deception by Salespersons and Customers Be Detected Through Non-Verbal Behavioral Cues?, Journal of Applied Social Psychology (19), pp. 1552-1577. Donovan, R. J., and Rossiter, J. R. 1982. Store Atmosphere: An Environmental Psychology Approach, Journal of Retailing (58:1), pp. 34-57. Ekman, P., and Friesen, W. V. 1969. Nonverbal Leakage and Clues to Deception, Psychiatry (32:1), pp. 88-105. Eroglu, S. A., Machleit, K. A., and Davis, L. M. 2001. Atmospheric Qualities of Online Retailing: A Conceptual Model and Implications, Journal of Business Research (54:2), pp. 177-184. Fatt, J. P. T. 2001. Understanding Deception, EQUAL Opportunities International (20:3), pp. 28-32. Federal Trade Commission. 2001. Boom in E-Commerce Has Created Fertile Ground for Fraud: FTC, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC, May 23 (http://www.ftc.gov/ opa/2001/05/iftestimony.shtm; accessed May 10, 2009). Fiore, A. M., and Kim, J. 2007. An Integrative Framework Capturing Experiential and Utilitarian Shopping Experience, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management (35:6), pp. 421-442. Fiske, S. T., and Taylor, S. E. 1984. Social Cognition, New York: Random House. Ford, G. T., and Calfee, J. E. 1986. Recent Developments in FTC Policy on Deception, Journal of Marketing (50), pp. 82-103. Forgas, J. P. 1995. Mood and Judgment: The Affect Infusion Model (AIM), Psychological Bulletin (117:1), pp. 39-66. Formisano, R. A., Olshavsky, R. W., and Tapp, S. 1982. Choice Strategy in a Difficult Task Environment, Journal of Consumer Research (8:4), pp. 474-479. Frank, M. G., and Feeley, T. H. 2003. To Catch a Liar: Challenges for Research in Lie Detection Training, Journal of Applied Communication Research (31:1), pp. 58-75. Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., and Straub, D. W. 2003. Trust and TAM in Online Shopping: An Integrated Model, MIS Quarterly (27:1), pp. 51-90. George, J. F., Marett, K., and Tilley, P. 2004. Deception Detection Under Varying Electronic Media and Warning Conditions, in Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press. Gibson, J. J. 1979. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception, Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Gilovich, T. 1991. How We Know What Isnt So: The Fallibility of Human Reason in Everyday Life, New York: The Free Press. Glover, S., and Benbasat, I. 2006. The Salient Beliefs of E-Commerce Transaction Perceived Risk, unpublished working paper, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. Grazioli, S. 2004. Where Did They Go Wrong? An Analysis of the Failure of Knowledgeable Internet Consumers to Detect
191
Deception over the Internet, Group Decision and Negotiation (13:2), pp. 149-172. Grazioli, S., and Jarvenpaa, S. L. 2000. Perils of Internet Fraud: An Empirical Investigation of Deception and Trust with Experienced Internet Consumers, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (30:4), pp. 395-410. Grazioli, S., and Jarvenpaa, S. L. 2001. Tactics Used Against Consumers as Victims of Internet Deception, in Proceedings of the 7th Americas Conference on Information Systems, D. Strong and D. Straub (eds.), Boston, MA,August 3-5, pp. 810-815. Grazioli, S., and Jarvenpaa, S. L. 2003a. Consumer and Business Deception on the Internet: Content Analysis of Documentary Evidence, International Journal of Electronic Commerce (7:4), pp. 93-118. Grazioli, S., and Jarvenpaa, S. L. 2003b. Deceived: Under Target Online, Communications of the ACM (46:12), pp. 196-205. Grazioli, S., and Wang, A. 2001. Looking Without Seeing: Understanding Unsophisticated Consumers Success and Failure to Detect Internet Deception, in Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Information Systems, V. Storey, S. Sarkar, and J. I. DeGross (eds.), New Orleans, December 16-19, pp. 193-202. Heckman, C. E., and Wobbrock, J. O. 2000. Put Your Best Face Forward: Anthropomorphic Agents, E-Commerce Consumers, and the Law, in Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Autonomous Agents, Barcelona, Spain, June 3-6, pp. 435-442. Heller, R. S., and Martin, C. D. 1995. A Media Taxonomy, IEEE MultiMedia (2:4), pp. 36-45. Higgins, E. T. 1989. Knowledge Accessibility and Activation: Subjectivity and Suffering from Unconscious Sources, in Unintended Thought, J. S. Uleman and J. A. Bargh (eds.), New York: Guilford Press, pp. 75-123. Hill, D. J., King, M. F., and Cohen, E. 1996. The Perceived Utility of Information Presented Via Electronic Decision Aids: A Consumer Perspective, Journal of Consumer Policy (19:2), pp. 137-166. Honeycutt, J. M. 1991. The Role of Nonverbal Behaviors in Modifying Expectancies During Initial Encounters, Southern Communication Journal (56:3), pp. 161-177. Internet Crime Complaint Center. 2008. 2008 Internet Crime Report, National White Collar Crime Center and Bureau of Justice Assistance (http://www.ic3.gov/media/annualreport/ 2008_IC3Report.pdf; accessed June 6, 2009). Jacoby, J. 1977. Information Load and Decision Quality: Some Contested Issues, Journal of Marketing Research (14), pp. 544-569. Jarvenpaa, S. L. 1989. The Effect of Task Demands and Graphical Format on Information Processing Strategies, Management Science (35:3), pp. 285-303. Jiang, Z., and Benbasat, I. 2005. Virtual Product Experience: Effects of Visual and Functional Control of Products on Perceived Diagnosticity and Flow in Electronic Shopping, Journal of Management Information Systems (21:3), pp. 111-147. Jiang, Z., and Benbasat, I. 2007a. The Effects of Presentation Format and Task Complexity of Online Customers Product Understanding, MIS Quarterly (31:3), pp. 475-500.
Jiang, Z., and Benbasat, I. 2007b. Investigating the Influence of Interactivity and Vividness on Online Product Presentations, Information Systems Research (18:4), pp. 454-470. Johnson, P. E., Grazioli, S., and Jamal, K. 1993. Fraud Detection: Intentionality and Deception in Cognition, Accounting, Organizations and Society (18:5), pp. 467-488. Johnson, P. E., Grazioli, S., Jamal, K., and Berryman, R. G. 2001. Detecting Deception: Adversarial Problem Solving in a Low Base-Rate World, Cognitive Science (25:3), pp. 355-392. Jones, E. E. 1986. Interpreting Interpersonal Behavior: The Effects of Expectancies, Science (234:4772), pp. 41-46. Kacen, J. J., and Lee, J. A. 2002. The Influence of Culture on Consumer Impulsive Buying Behavior, Journal of Consumer Psychology (12:2), pp. 163-176. King, M. F., and Balasubramanian, S. K. 1994. The Effects of Expertise, End Goal, and Product Type on Adoption of Preference Formation Strategy, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (22:2), pp. 146-159. King, M. F., and Hill, D. J. 1994. Electronic Decision Aids: Integration of a Consumer Perspective, Journal of Consumer Policy (17:2), pp. 181-206. Klein, B. D., Goodhue, D. L., and Davis, G. B. 1997. Can Humans Detect Errors in Data? Impact of Base Rates, Incentives, and Goals, MIS Quarterly (21:2), pp. 169-194. Kleinmuntz, D. N., and Schkade, D. A. 1993. Information Displays and Decision Processes, Psychological Science (4:4), pp. 221-227. Koonce, L. 1993. A Cognitive Characterization of Audit Analytical Review, Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory (Supplement), pp. 57-76. LaRose, R. 2001. On the Negative Effects of E-Commerce: A Sociocognitive Exploration of Unregulated On-line Buying, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (6:3). Levine, T. R., Anders, L. N., Banas, J., Baum, K. L., Endo, K., Hu, A. D. S., and Wong, N. C. H. 2000. Norms, Expectations, and Deception: A Norm Violation Model of Veracity Judgments, Communication Monographs (67:2), pp. 123-137. Lim, K. H., and Benbasat, I. 2000. The Effect of Multimedia on Perceived Equivocality and Perceived Usefulness of Information Systems, MIS Quarterly (24:3), pp. 449-471. Masip, J., Garrido, E., and Herrero, C. 2004. Defining Deception, Anales de Psicologia (20:1), pp. 147-171. McCornack, S. A. 1992. Information Manipulation Theory, Communication Monographs (59:1), pp. 1-16. Mehrabian, A., and Russell, J. A. 1974. An Approach to Environmental Psychology, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Miller, G. R. 1983. Telling it Like it Isnt and Not Telling it Like it Is: Some Thoughts on Deceptive Communication, in The Jensen Lectures, J. I. Sisco (ed.), Tampa, FL: University of South Florida Press, pp. 91-116. Moe, W. W. 2003. Buying, Searching, or Browsing: Differentiating Between Online Shoppers Using In-Store Navigational Clickstream, Journal of Consumer Psychology (13:1-2), pp. 29-39. Morrison, E. W., and Robinson, S. L. 1997. When Employees Feel Betrayed: A Model of How Psychological Contract
192
Violation Develops, Academy of Management Review (22), pp. 226-256. Mosier, K. L., Skitka, L. J., Heers, S., and Burdick, M. 1998. Automation Bias: Decision Making and Performance in HighTech Cockpits, International Journal of Aviation Psychology (8:1), pp. 47-63. NCLs Fraud Center. 2007. 2007 Top 10 Internet Scams, National Consumers League, Washington, DC (http://www. fraud.org/internet/2007internet.pdf; accessed June 5, 2009). Norman, J. 1983. Are the Direct and Indirect Theories of Perception Incompatible? Behavioral and Brain Sciences (6), pp. 729-731. Parboteeah, D. V. 2005. A Model of Online Impulse Buying: An Empirical Study, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Washington State University, Seattle, WA. Pavlou, P. A., and Gefen, D. 2005. Psychological Contract Violation in Online Marketplaces: Antecedents, Consequences, and Moderating Role, Information Systems Research (16:4), pp. 372-399. Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., and Johnson, E. 1993. The Adaptive Decision Maker, New York: Cambridge University Press. Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., and Johnson, E. J. 1992. Behavioral Decision Research: A Constructive Processing Perspective, Annual Review of Psychology (43:1), pp. 87-131. Petty, R. E., and Cacioppo, J. T. 1986. The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion, in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Volume 19, L. Berkowitz (ed.), New York: Academic Press, pp. 123-205. Reeves, B., and Nass, C. 1996. The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Televisions, and New Media Like Real People and Places, New York: Cambridge University Press. Robinson, S. L. 1996. Trust and Breach of the Psychological Contract, Administrative Science Quarterly (41:4), pp. 574-599. Robinson, S. L., and Morrison, E. W. 2000. The Development of Psychological Contract Breach and Violation: A Longitudinal Study, Journal of Organizational Behavior (21:5), pp. 525-546. Rook, D. W., and Fisher, R. J. 1995. Normative Influences on Impulsive Buying Behavior, Journal of Consumer Research (22:3), pp. 305-313. Russell, J. A., and Pratt, G. 1980. A Description of the Affective Quality Attributed to Environments, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (38), pp. 311-322. Schkade, D. A., and Kleinmuntz, D. N. 1994. Information Displays and Choice Processes: Differential Effects of Organization, Form, and Sequence, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes (57:3), pp. 319-337. Shapiro, D. L., Sheppard, B. H., and Cheraskin, L. 1992. Business on a Handshake, Negotiation Journal (8:4), pp. 365-377. Sherman, E., Mathur, A., and Smith, R. B. 1997. Store Environment and Consumer Purchase Behavior: Mediating Role of Consumer Emotions, Psychology and Marketing (14:4), pp. 361-378. Short, J., Williams, E., and Christie, B. 1976. The Social Psychology of Telecommunication, New York: John Wiley & Sons. Sia, C. L., Lim, K. H., Leung, K., Lee, M. K. O., Huang, W. W., and Benbasat, I. 2009. Web Strategies to Promote Internet
Shopping: Is Cultural-Customization Needed?, MIS Quarterly (33:3), pp. 491-512. Singsangob, A. 2005. Thailands Consumer Protection in Electronic Commerce: Laws and Regulations, paper presented at the 4th International Conference on eBusiness, Bangkok, Thailand, November 19-20. Skitka, L. J., Mosier, K. L., and Burdick, M. 1999. Does Automation Bias Decision-Making? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies (51:5), pp. 991-1006. Skitka, L. J., Mosier, K., and Burdick, M. D. 2000. Accountability and Automation Bias, International Journal of HumanComputer Studies (52:4), pp. 701-717. Spiekermann, S. 2001. Online Information Search with Electronic Agents: Drivers, Impediments, and Privacy Issues, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Humboldt University Berlin, Berlin, Germany. Straub, D. W., and Welke, R. J. 1998. Coping with Systems Risk: Security Planning Models for Management Decision Making, MIS Quarterly (22:4), pp. 441-469. Suler, J. 2004. The Online Disinhibition Effect, Cyber Psychology & Behavior (7:3), pp. 321-326. Suler, J. 2005. Contemporary Media Forum: The Online Disinhibition Effect, International Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies (2:2), pp. 184-188. Sundar, S. S., and Kalyanaraman, S. 2004. Arousal, Memory, and Impression-Formation Effects of Animation Speed in Web Advertising, Journal of Advertising (33:1), pp. 7-17. Sweeney, J. C., and Soutar, G. N. 2001. Consumer Perceived Value: The Development of a Multiple Item Scale, Journal of Retailing (77), pp. 203-220. Tilley, P. A. 2005. Training, Warning, and Media Richness Effects on Computer-Mediated Deception and Its Detection. unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL. Tomlinson, E. C., and Mayer, R. C. 2009. The Role of Causal Attribution Dimensions in Trust Repair, Academy of Management Review (34:1), pp. 85-104. Tseng, S., and Fogg, B. J. 1999. Credibility and Computing Technology, Communications of the ACM (42:5), pp. 39-44. Wagner, J. A., Klein, N. M., and Keith, J. E. 2001. Selling Strategies: The Effects of Suggesting a Decision Structure to Novice and Expert Buyers, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (29:3), pp. 290-307. Weiner, B. 1986. An Attributional Model of Motivation and Emotion, New York: Springer-Verlag. Wells, J. T. 2002. Let Them Know Someones Watching: From the Boardroom to the Mailroom, All Fraudsters Think Alike, Journal of Accountancy (193:5) (available online at http://www. systrust.us/pubs/jofa/may2002/wells.htm). Williams, T., and Larson, M. 2000. Creating the Ideal Shopping Experience: What Consumers Want in the Physical and Virtual Store, Trustees of Indiana UniversityKPMG, Bloomington, IN. Williamson, O. 1993. Calculativeness, Trust, and Economic Organization, Journal of Law & Economics (36:1), pp. 453-486. Wingfield, N., and Pereira, J. 2002. Amazon Uses Faux Suggestions to Promote New Clothing Store, Wall Street Journal, December 4.
193
Wojciszke, B. 2005. Affective Concomitants of Information on Morality and Competence, European Psychologist (10:1), pp. 60-70. Xiao, B., and Benbasat, I. 2007. E-commerce Product Recommendation Agents: Use, Characteristics, and Impact, MIS Quarterly (31:1), pp.137-209. Zaichkowsky, J. L. 1985. Measuring the Involvement Construct, Journal of Consumer Research (12:3), pp. 341-352. Zeithaml, V. A. 1988. Consumer Perception of Price, Quality, and Value: A Means-End Model and Synthesis of Evidence, Journal of Marketing (52:3), pp. 2-22. Zuckerman, M., DePaulo, B. M., and Rosenthal, R. 1986. Humans as Deceivers and Lie Detectors, in Nonverbal Communication in the Clinical Context, P. D. Blanck, R. Buck, and R. Rosenthal (eds.), University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, pp. 13-35. Zuckerman, M., DePaulo, B. M., and Rosenthal, R. 1981. Verbal and Nonverbal Communication of Deception, in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Volume 14, L. Berkowitz (ed.), New York: Academic Press, pp. 1-59. Zuckerman, M., Koestner, R., and Alton, A. O. 1984. Learning to Detect Deception, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (46:3), pp. 519-528.
About the Authors

Bo Xiao is an assistant professor of Computing and Information Systems in the Department of Computer Science at Hong Kong Baptist University. She received her Ph.D. in Management Information Systems from the University of British Columbia. Her research interests include humancomputer interaction; e-commerce trust, risk, and deception; online consumer decision support; and social networking. Izak Benbasat, Fellow-Royal Society of Canada, is CANADA Research Chair in Information Technology Management at the Sauder School of Business, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. He currently serves on the editorial boards of Journal of Information Systems and Journal of Management Information Systems. He was editor-in-chief of Information Systems Research, editor of the Information Systems and Decision Support Systems Department of Management Science, and a senior editor of MIS Quarterly. The general theme of his research is improving the communication between information technology (IT), management, and IT users. This communication exits at different levels of the organization and has different facets, for example, interaction between individual managers and intelligent decision support systems, design of interfaces for customers shopping at web stores, and dialogues between IT professionals and line managers.
Appendix A
Examples of Deception Associated with E-Commerce IT Artifacts
IT Artifacts Product recommendation agent (PRA) Online testing (or virtual product experience) Third-party seal(s)/certificate(s) Escrow service Shipment tracking system Online consumer review Chat with other consumers Examples of Deception The online company designs a PRA that provides biased product recommendations to serve the interests of the company. The virtual experience does not represent consumers real experiences with a product (e.g., the performance for certain features is artificially enhanced). The third-party privacy/security seal embedded in the online companys website is forged by the company. The online company does not disclose to consumers that the third-party payment service it recommends is actually a branch of the online company. The tracking system provides false product shipping information. Staffs of the online company pose as prior customers to author positive reviews at the consumer forum, or the online company may filter out negative reviews left by prior customers. The other customer with whom a customer is chatting is a staff member of the online company.
194
Appendix B
Examples of IT-Based Deception Detection Mechanisms
Mechanisms Site validation toolbar Description Authenticating the identity of online company. Examples include Microsoft anti-phishing toolbar, the eBay toolbar, and VirusScan Antifraud toolbar. Site validation can be performed automatically with little user intervention. Links to reputable third-party business rating websites (e.g., bizrate.com, epinion.com), results of regular audit of random transactions of the online company or list of known questionable websites (e.g., from browsing sweeps), BBB company report, etc. Offers dual browser support and enables consumers to compare and contrast the information about products and services from different websites (e.g., manufacturers websites, online companies websites, relevant reputation website, and performance histories). A shopping assistant is an intelligent agent that monitors where consumers are in the online transaction process and provides situation-specific checklists to help consumers detect deception. A simple version of a shopping assistant is available free of charge to consumers at econsumer.gov. Special toolbar for Internet browser that integrates several deception detection mechanisms. Implementation Third-party browser plug-in
Reputation systems/ performance history
Links provided by the online company or thirdparty browser plug-in Third-party browser plug-in
Verification assistant
Shopping assistant
Third-party browser plug-in; can stay on top of the screen during online shopping Third-party browser plug-in
Fraud detection toolbar
195
196
Copyright of MIS Quarterly is the property of MIS Quarterly & The Society for Information Management and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Ethics Research 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ethics Research 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THEORY AND REVIEW

PRODUCT-RELATED DECEPTION IN E-COMMERCE: A THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE1

MIS Quarterly Vol. 35 No. 1 pp. 169-195/March 2011

Xiao & Benbasat/Product-Related Deception in E-Commerce

MIS Quarterly Vol. 35 No. 1/March 2011

Xiao & Benbasat/Product-Related Deception in E-Commerce

A Typology of Product-Related Deceptive Information Practices in E-Commerce

MIS Quarterly Vol. 35 No. 1/March 2011

Xiao & Benbasat/Product-Related Deception in E-Commerce

Manipulations Performed on Information Content

MIS Quarterly Vol. 35 No. 1/March 2011

Xiao & Benbasat/Product-Related Deception in E-Commerce

Manipulations Performed on Information Presentation

MIS Quarterly Vol. 35 No. 1/March 2011

Xiao & Benbasat/Product-Related Deception in E-Commerce

Manipulations Performed on Information Generation

MIS Quarterly Vol. 35 No. 1/March 2011

Xiao & Benbasat/Product-Related Deception in E-Commerce

A Theory of Product-Related Deceptive Information Practices in E-Commerce

MIS Quarterly Vol. 35 No. 1/March 2011

Xiao & Benbasat/Product-Related Deception in E-Commerce

Table 1. Examples of Product-Related Deceptive Information Practices in B2C E-Commerce

MIS Quarterly Vol. 35 No. 1/March 2011

Xiao & Benbasat/Product-Related Deception in E-Commerce

MIS Quarterly Vol. 35 No. 1/March 2011

Xiao & Benbasat/Product-Related Deception in E-Commerce

ORGANISM Affective Mechanisms Pleasure

Approach Behavior Toward Target Product(s)

Perceived Product Value

Individual, Product, and Situational Characteristics

Deception Detection Support Mechanisms

Attribution of Product Related Anomaly Noticed at E-Commerce Website

Causal link Process arrow

Figure 1. A Theoretical Model of Product-Related Deceptive Information Practices in E-Commerce

MIS Quarterly Vol. 35 No. 1/March 2011

Xiao & Benbasat/Product-Related Deception in E-Commerce

MIS Quarterly Vol. 35 No. 1/March 2011

Xiao & Benbasat/Product-Related Deception in E-Commerce

MIS Quarterly Vol. 35 No. 1/March 2011

Xiao & Benbasat/Product-Related Deception in E-Commerce

MIS Quarterly Vol. 35 No. 1/March 2011

Xiao & Benbasat/Product-Related Deception in E-Commerce

Consumer Deception Detection

MIS Quarterly Vol. 35 No. 1/March 2011

Xiao & Benbasat/Product-Related Deception in E-Commerce

MIS Quarterly Vol. 35 No. 1/March 2011

Xiao & Benbasat/Product-Related Deception in E-Commerce

MIS Quarterly Vol. 35 No. 1/March 2011

Xiao & Benbasat/Product-Related Deception in E-Commerce

MIS Quarterly Vol. 35 No. 1/March 2011

Xiao & Benbasat/Product-Related Deception in E-Commerce

MIS Quarterly Vol. 35 No. 1/March 2011

Xiao & Benbasat/Product-Related Deception in E-Commerce

Contributions to Research and Practice

Discussion and Conclusions

MIS Quarterly Vol. 35 No. 1/March 2011

Xiao & Benbasat/Product-Related Deception in E-Commerce

Suggestions for Future Research

MIS Quarterly Vol. 35 No. 1/March 2011

Xiao & Benbasat/Product-Related Deception in E-Commerce

MIS Quarterly Vol. 35 No. 1/March 2011

Xiao & Benbasat/Product-Related Deception in E-Commerce

MIS Quarterly Vol. 35 No. 1/March 2011